http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
--- Comment #17 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=21028)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21028&action=view)
Changelog for alternative patches
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #16 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=21027)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21027&action=view)
Alternative patch for 4.5 and trunk
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #15 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=21026)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21026&action=view)
Alternative patch that affects powerpc only
--
edmar at freescale dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-28 15:15 ---
I am attaching new patches. One for gcc-4.4 and the other for gcc-4.5 and
gcc-4.6.
All three branches were bootstrapped and regression tested for both 32 bits
powerpc (603e) and 64 bit powerpc (970) with no regressions
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 20:56 ---
It looks much better than adding new single register constraints to me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
--- Comment #12 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-22 20:51 ---
Ok. Following your lines from comment 8, (You suggested to create 3 new
constraint, "d", which would accepts only one register each (11, 12, 1), right
?).
The following is more explicit, and would avoid to allocate 3 m
--- Comment #11 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-22 16:53 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Because the insn has a register reference to r11/r1/r12 :) that is the (use
> (match_operand: )) part of the rtx. This is unlike call instructions which
> don't have match_operands for funct
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 23:54
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Hummm, I will work on your input, But now I have more questions:
>
> 1) Why do you call this case as explicit, and function call arguments implicit
> ? The way I see it, this is a specia
--- Comment #9 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 23:36 ---
Hummm, I will work on your input, But now I have more questions:
1) Why do you call this case as explicit, and function call arguments implicit
? The way I see it, this is a special function call (implemented with a
jum
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 21:29 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I mostly agree with you. But in this case, it is already a hard register (rtl
> generated in epilogue).
No the pattern accepts any registers which means register rename can rename the
reg
--- Comment #7 from edmar at freescale dot com 2010-06-21 21:18 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think this is the wrong fix I think the problem is in the patterns not
> using a hard register or a constraint that says only those registers can be
> used.
>
> Confirmed.
>
I mostly
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-21 20:34 ---
I think this is the wrong fix I think the problem is in the patterns not
using a hard register or a constraint that says only those registers can be
used.
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org chang
13 matches
Mail list logo
