https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> Created attachment 55250 [details]
> This patch also fixes the issue by looking back
>
> Here is a patch which does the lookback if the reg is a hard register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55250&action=edit
This patch also fixes the issue by looking back
Here is a patch which does the lookback if the reg is a hard r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> Now I am curious if T_REG should be BImode rather than SImode ... Then
> ifcvt.cc would not have to be modified. I Know BImode is newer than when sh
> target was ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
Now I am curious if T_REG should be BImode rather than SImode ... Then ifcvt.cc
would not have to be modified. I Know BImode is newer than when sh target was
added but maybe if someone cares about the sh tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
I was thinking of improving this is modify noce_get_condition here (we still
need the previous patch just in case we still get the T register).
Right now noce_get_condition will stop at:
(eq (reg:SI 147 t)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #13)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 55239 [details]
> > Patch which does work on this
> >
> > Though, I need to double to make sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> Created attachment 55239 [details]
> Patch which does work on this
>
> Though, I need to double to make sure it works for other cases still.
> sh is the case where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #55237|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> The reason why r6-3654-g6b7e867187889 didn't fix this case is because it was
> not looking into clobbers only the set side.
>
> Note the conditional in my patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-10-05 00:00:00 |2023-6-1
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
The reason why r6-3654-g6b7e867187889 didn't fix this case is because it was
not looking into clobbers only the set side.
Note the conditional in my patch should have been
if (reg_overlap_mentioned_p (DF_RE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55237
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55237&action=edit
Patch which I think will fix this
This is option 1 of comment #3 though with an updated version.
I have not tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> Huh, I wasn't aware of this BZ.
> This looks eerily similar to what I think is the root cause of PR 67481,
> which I'm working on now.
>
> After I'm done with PR 67481 it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58517
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com
--- Comment #5
15 matches
Mail list logo
