This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: optimization by as
- From: Virendra Kumar Pathak <kumarvir dot pathak at gmail dot com>
- To: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:21:24 +0530
- Subject: Re: optimization by as
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAEDvCBS2RdGBwpirseB5Bne1_tOw=68O-5V9Q-S+AmZM7+vWog at mail dot gmail dot com> <0DA23CC379F5F945ACB41CF394B982772110532C at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <CAEDvCBS4m4UkNo+XcAPLZ7i9PYdV3XSp-XxGUvoEvHN9RWEnfQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B023532120CF37 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org>
Thanks for providing the information.
On 10 August 2015 at 18:52, Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> wrote:
> Virendra Kumar Pathak <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> What other types of optimization can be handled by the assembler ?
>> Are they capable of re-ordering the instructions ?
>> For example inserting other instruction between two loads (on machine
>> with one load unit) to avoid pipeline stall.
> No, that would then be a compiler/recompiler as it needs to do so much
> analysis for safety. You 'can' do anything you like in the assembler
> but probably shouldn't as it is not geared up for that kind of processing.
> The assembler and linker for most architectures tend to be wysiwyg from
> what I know; with special cases only where there are chip errata that need
> fixing. The fixes tend to be things like nop insertion or something
> equally simple but can get more elaborate. In general I would suggest
> not surprising your users by making the assembler too smart.
Virendra Kumar Pathak