search for: lcfi1

...tform? The results I'm seeing clearly have both gcc and clang on Darwin generating different LSDAs for your cleanup examples and your catch-all examples. Here is the output I see from gcc-4.2 for your cleanup example: .text .globl __Z3barv __Z3barv: LFB2: pushq %rbp LCFI0: movq %rsp, %rbp LCFI1: pushq %rbx LCFI2: subq $40, %rsp LCFI3: leaq -17(%rbp), %rdi call __ZN3BobC1Ev leaq -18(%rbp), %rdi call __ZN3BobC1Ev leaq -19(%rbp), %rdi call __ZN3BobC1Ev LEHB0: call __Z3foov LEHE0: <snip> .section __TEXT,__gcc_except_tab GCC_except_table0: LLSDA2: .byte 0xff .byte 0xff .by...

...e on OS X. When building for x86_64 with -arch x86_64 we get bad instructions generated: gcc -o foo -arch x86_64 foo.c /var/folders/rV/rV1x2DafFr0R6tGG+1bbk++++TM/-Tmp-//ccnykQ1o.s:11:bad register name `%%esi)'' Using gcc -S I can definitely see we are not generating correct code: LCFI1: __dtrace_probe$6_foo___probe__noargs: nop leal 0(%%esi), %%esi Building with -arch i386 works, DTRACE_PROBE1, etc also seem to work on OS X based on the building mod_trace. I attach a simple reproducer, changing the Makefile to build with - arch i386 works. Simply...

John, I'm still not sure what you're talking about, I have included the assembly output from two compilations, one with a user explicit catch-all, one with only an implicit cleanup, the DWARF Action Table and Types Table are absolutely identical, as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from the region maps. -Peter Lawrence.

Let's go directly to the example struct S { double dummy1; double dummy2; }; S bar(); S foo() { return bar(); } This is the result of g++ -c -S -O2 (focus on the final `ret'): __Z3foov: LFB0: pushl %ebp LCFI0: movl %esp, %ebp LCFI1: pushl %ebx LCFI2: subl $20, %esp LCFI3: movl 8(%ebp), %ebx movl %ebx, (%esp) call __Z3barv pushl %eax movl %ebx, %eax movl -4(%ebp), %ebx leave ret $4 This is the result of cl -O2 -c -Fa (again, focus on the final `ret') PUBLIC ?foo@@YA?AUS@@XZ ; foo EXTRN ?bar@@YA?AUS@@XZ:PROC...

...nction >>>>> multiply: # @multiply >>>>> .cfi_startproc >>>>> # BB#0: >>>>> push rbp >>>>> .Lcfi0: >>>>> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 >>>>> push r15 >>>>> .Lcfi1: >>>>> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 24 >>>>> push r14 >>>>> .Lcfi2: >>>>> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 32 >>>>> push r12 >>>>> .Lcfi3: >>>>> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 40 >>>>> push rbx >>>>&g...

Hello, Here is my first speedup patch. Like 10-11%. No IDCT yet. Please feel free to comment my code or even better think about improvements. :) I belive my routines are not so bad, maybe one day they will be even more faster. What needs to be optimized is the loop filter fuction. I have no ideas now how to do it. It does not leave much space for parallel stuff, copying memory from lot of

Hi, My understanding of a "dead" register is a def that is never used. However, when I dump the MI after reg alloc on a simple program I see the following sequence: ADJCALLSTACKDOWN64 0, 0, 0, *implicit-def dead %rsp*, implicit-def dead %eflags, implicit-def dead %ssp, implicit %rsp, implicit %ssp CALL64pcrel32 @foo, <regmask %bh %bl %bp %bpl %bx %ebp %ebx %rbp %rbx %r12 %r13 %r14