On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 05:11, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 06/19/2018 08:11 AM, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Previously GCC's no-op detection could would consider something a no-op
> > even when the
> > mode change is not directly possible. This caused subregs that shouldn't
> > be remo
On 06/19/2018 08:11 AM, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Previously GCC's no-op detection could would consider something a no-op even
> when the
> mode change is not directly possible. This caused subregs that shouldn't be
> removed
> to be treated as a no-op and deleted.
>
> Regtested on
Ping.
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
> On Behalf Of Tamar Christina
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 15:11
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: nd ; l...@redhat.com; rguent...@suse.de; i...@airs.com
> Subject: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Correct
Hi All,
Previously GCC's no-op detection could would consider something a no-op even
when the
mode change is not directly possible. This caused subregs that shouldn't be
removed
to be treated as a no-op and deleted.
Regtested on armeb-none-eabi and no regressions.
Bootstrapped on arm-none-linu
