Message ID | CAFULd4YKg7pws+iS_tgj-he99L_TF1aWQQh9yFg+B4EHmQ621g@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Uros Bizjak wrote: > 2011-12-22 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> > > PR target/27468 > * config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_option_override): Enable flag_ree > at -O2 or higher. Is there a reason you are doing it this way rather than by adding an entry to alpha_option_optimization_table (in common/config/alpha/alpha-common.c), which would generally be the preferred way of enabling an option at certain optimization levels on a target-specific basis?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> 2011-12-22 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> >> >> PR target/27468 >> * config/alpha/alpha.c (alpha_option_override): Enable flag_ree >> at -O2 or higher. > > Is there a reason you are doing it this way rather than by adding an entry > to alpha_option_optimization_table (in > common/config/alpha/alpha-common.c), which would generally be the > preferred way of enabling an option at certain optimization levels on a > target-specific basis? In fact, no. I was not aware of this approach, that is all. Uros.
Index: alpha.c =================================================================== --- alpha.c (revision 182615) +++ alpha.c (working copy) @@ -412,6 +412,10 @@ alpha_option_override (void) alpha_memory_latency = lat; } + /* Enable redundant extension instructions removal at -O2 and higher. */ + if (optimize >= 2 && !global_options_set.x_flag_ree) + flag_ree = 1; + /* Default the definition of "small data" to 8 bytes. */ if (!global_options_set.x_g_switch_value) g_switch_value = 8;