Re: [Valgrind-developers] [PATCH 1/2] x86: optimize XCHG to MOV for same-register forms
Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.debugging.valgrind.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 13.07.2026 11:28, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:09:23AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 12.07.2026 17:37, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> I am not sure I understand why you want inline assembly excluded. Yes, >>> inline assembly is "hand-written", but only because there was no exact >>> way to make the compiler produce a specific sequence or encoding of >>> some instructions. How about something like: >>> >>> "Assembler optimization is intended primarily for hand-written >>> assembly files, not for use with compiler generated code (or inline >>> assembly crafted explicitly to produce a specific instruction sequence >>> or encoding). If you notice any effects on compiler generated code, >>> please consider raising a bug against the compiler about a missed >>> optimization. Note, however, that this does not extend to there >>> possibly being effects on code originating from hand-written assembly >>> code embedded as a whole into a higher-level language compiler." >> >> Well. You've seen H.J.'s reply, haven't you? His take is that -O very much >> is for compiler generated code. As just indicated on another thread, what >> is needed here first is an agreed upon understanding what we want to >> optimize (for). Intentions originally weren't made sufficiently clear, and >> hence views looks to have heavily diverged. > > OK, but lets document that then so people don't accidentially use -O > without knowing that the option doesn't have clear semantics. How > about simply: > > "Assembler optimization is currently an experimental feature that > might result in changing instruction encoding, replacement of > instructions by equivalent ones or removal of instructions that could > be seen as nops. Don't use it when you have code that depends on the > exact assembler instruction encodings." I could live with this (yet I'd still like to understand what the criteria would be to drop this experimental status). H.J. - I fear you may not like it in this shape? Jan