[fpc-devel] Linux compilation question

[J. Gareth Moreton]

 Aw, okay.  Well, post peephole is still a separate stage, since that
prevents a lot of other optimisations (e.g. changing mov 0,%reg into xor
%reg,%reg).

 I'll start breaking it up into smaller chunks.

 Gareth aka. Kit

 On Sat 01/12/18 19:54 , Florian Klämpfl florian at freepascal.org sent:
 Am 01.12.2018 um 17:28 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton: 
 > Thanks Bart, 
 > 
 > I managed to get it to build after reinstalling the FPC compiler 3.0.4 -
it seems it was getting confused between two 
 > different versions on my virtual machine - but after all that it does
look like a bug in my new code.  I've managed to 
 > get it to compile from a clean build and with a couple of modified files
that don't do anything drastic, so now I'll try 
 > to isolate the issue and update my patch file.  An overhauled peephole
optimizer is no use if it breaks Linux! 

 I had a quick look at the patch and I strongly recommend to split it in
multiple patches which can be reviewed more 
 easily. This allows also to detect easier which change breaks things and
also to measure which change increases speed 
 and which change is not needed. 

 In general, I am not happy with the merge of the four passes as it makes
maintenance much harder. 
 _______________________________________________ 
 fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org [1] 
 http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[2]">http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel 

 

Links:
------
[1] mailto:fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
[2] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/attachments/20181201/4bfd6d2b/attachment.html>