Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins


Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Ayonam Ray <ayonam@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:26:50 -0800
Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of iant@xxxxxxxxxx designates 10.236.92.201 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=iant@xxxxxxxxxx; dkim=pass header.i=iant@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1330568838; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received: Received-SPF:Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Cc: Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=60s49ObnwYPnuyRZsg97JJluv0s=; b=TAscudu5BcjWuM/ aeNoGsAgz0N96tPHub7GjMA56BXnmL7QEszrgg6WJNZ//heOW/0kV+78KNcFAcmO xWMJfAeL8R53/6fVPUj+3dd+yJPYxtCLWghKn+2BtrYKmXE5+YkuFHawY5TH3YMK clr+cAm9PaZ+ll+mBdnA8dqwj3to=
In-reply-to: <CA+V5N8kkFYzFwu4zhRMa0k2XsanZpM1+DmeDjeBjcg_8RRQr0A@mail.gmail.com> (Ayonam Ray's message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:23:52 +0530")
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

Ayonam Ray <ayonam@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I will give it a try.  Is there a way to mark all registers as
> clobbered in an RTL (like we can do for memory using (clobber (mem:BLK
> (const_int 0))) )?

Not directly, no, but I don't think it's what you want to do anyhow.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray

References:
- Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
  - From: Ayonam Ray

Prev by Date: Re: What exactly does is_variable_sized test for?
Next by Date: Re: What exactly does is_variable_sized test for?
Previous by thread: Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
Next by thread: Re: Preventing scheduling of normal operations across calls to built-ins
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]