lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 0/2] Immediate Values - jump patching update
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Peter, do you have something like the following code in mind ?
>

Basically, although I was suggesting using a per-site dynamic piece of
code. Data items may not necessarily be in registers.

> I think the main differences between the code snippet down here and the
> markers is that markers rely on the compiler to generate the stack
> setup, and have this code a little bit closer to the function than what
> I propose here, where I put the stack setup code in a "farfaraway"
> section. Moreover, markers are much simpler than what I show here.
> And actually, markers can be deployed portably, with
> architecture-specific optimizations refined later. This has to be
> implemented all up front for any traced architecture. In addition,
> dealing with weird types like unsigned long long can become a pain.
> Also, due to fact that we are asking the compiler to put keep some
> variables live in registers, I would be tempted to embed this in a block
> controlled by an if() statement (conditional branch, like I use for the
> markers) so we don't have to pay the penality of populating the
> registers when not required if there are not live at the marker site.

We're requesting to keep them *alive*, but not necessarily in registers
(that would be an "r" constraint.)

-hpa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-29 04:11    [W:0.180 / U:0.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site