On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals
From: H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:58 -0700
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:58 -0700
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
removed? It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
You mean -fno-lra, and s/IRA/LRA/, right? I think the reason for no
compiler switch is that while returning false from
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
removed? It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
You mean -fno-lra, and s/IRA/LRA/, right? I
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
removed? It will be useful to investiage
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Should there be
David Miller da...@davemloft.net writes:
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
extra constraints
From: Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:34:00 +0100
David Miller da...@davemloft.net writes:
I'll add the straightforward check to sparc's legitimate_address_p,
but I'm really surprised you never hit this case in your testing.
Adding the check sounds
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
And PR bootstrap/55068 due to assert failure in push_reload() .
GCC bootstrapped on AIX with your patches. Thanks for fixing the
problems so quickly.
- David
This also causes PR bootstrap/55067 on AIX due to the use of typedef loc_t.
Thanks, David
And PR bootstrap/55068 due to assert failure in push_reload() .
Thanks, David
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals
which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in comparison
with reload.
On 24.10.2012 08:55, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen. LRA
was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals which
resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC
David Miller da...@davemloft.net writes:
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must use
define_memory_constraint.
Otherwise
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:17:48AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Sparc accepts addresses of the form:
(plus:DI (lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 282)
(symbol_ref:DI (__mf_opts) var_decl 0xf78d74a0 __mf_opts))
(const_int 40 [0x28]))
These make use of Sparc's offsetable %lo()
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:17:48AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Sparc accepts addresses of the form:
(plus:DI (lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 282)
(symbol_ref:DI (__mf_opts) var_decl 0xf78d74a0 __mf_opts))
(const_int 40 [0x28]))
These make
On 10/23/12 16:46, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not
happen. LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing
reviewer's proposals which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on
GCC testsuite in comparison with reload. Finally,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals
which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in
Hello!
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen. LRA
was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals which
resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in comparison with
reload. Finally, they were fixed and everything looks
On 10/23/2012 01:57 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen. LRA was
actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals which
resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in comparison with
reload.
From: Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:46:34 -0400
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not
happen. LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing
reviewer's proposals which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on
GCC
On 12-10-23 5:28 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:46:34 -0400
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not
happen. LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing
reviewer's proposals which resulted
From: Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:04:03 -0400
I am not sure that anything except x86/x86-64 will work now on the
branch. There were too many changes on the branch and I tested only
x86/x86-64. I'll start testing the rest of targets on the branch
next week
From: David Miller da...@davemloft.net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must use
define_memory_constraint.
Otherwise the EXTRA_MEMORY_CONSTRAINT logic in
26 matches
Mail list logo
