search for: nonlocal_mentioned_p

...rogram arguments: llc.hg -asm-verbose=false -O0 32/403.gcc/403.gcc.linked.bc -o 32/403.gcc/output/403.gcc.linked.bc.llc_O0.s 1. Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module '32/403.gcc/403.gcc.linked.bc'. 2. Running pass 'Live Interval Analysis' on function '@nonlocal_mentioned_p' - Jan On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On May 17, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Rafael Espindola wrote: > > >> The fast and local register allocators are meant to be used on > unoptimized code, a 'Debug build'. Whil...

On May 17, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Rafael Espindola wrote: >> The fast and local register allocators are meant to be used on unoptimized code, a 'Debug build'. While they do work on optimized code, they do not give good results. Their primary goal is compile time, not code quality. > > Yes, we have a somewhat uncommon use case. It is fine to spend time > optimizing bitcode (LTO

> The fast and local register allocators are meant to be used on unoptimized code, a 'Debug build'. While they do work on optimized code, they do not give good results. Their primary goal is compile time, not code quality. Yes, we have a somewhat uncommon use case. It is fine to spend time optimizing bitcode (LTO is a OK), but we want to make the final IL -> Executable translation

...00014 __FUNCTION__.22282 > +00000540 l O .rodata 00000014 __FUNCTION__.22195 > 00003480 l F .text 00000095 overlapping_memrefs_p > -00000554 l O .rodata 00000015 __FUNCTION__.22434 > +00000554 l O .rodata 00000015 __FUNCTION__.22347 > 00003700 l F .text ffffcac0 nonlocal_mentioned_p_1 > -00000569 l O .rodata 00000017 __FUNCTION__.22734 > +00000569 l O .rodata 00000017 __FUNCTION__.22647 > 00000580 l O .rodata 00000018 .str6 > 00003980 l F .text 0000009a nonlocal_mentioned_p > 00003a20 l F .text ffffc7f8 nonlocal_referenced_p_1 > -000005...

The saga continues. I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3 of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ: warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs (Are the above two ok?) The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in the