Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 05:37:36PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> So, do you want something like (I've deleted the old comment as I think
>> the new one is enough, but am open to keep both) the patch below, where
>> it REG_CAN_CHANGE_MODE_P is false, we punt (return), other
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 05:37:36PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, do you want something like (I've deleted the old comment as I think
> the new one is enough, but am open to keep both) the patch below, where
> it REG_CAN_CHANGE_MODE_P is false, we punt (return), otherwise call
> set_value_regno?
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:59:24AM +0100, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> > I wrote the following patch (originally against 10 branch because that is
> > where Uros has been debugging it) and bootstrapped/regtested it on 11
> > branch successfully.
> > It effectively implements your (2)
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:10:33PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>> Ah, ok, thanks for the extra context.
>>
>> So AIUI the problem when recording xmm2<-di isn't just:
>>
>> [A] partial_subreg_p (vd->e[sr].mode, GET_MODE (src))
>>
>> but also that:
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 07:44:46PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> So perhaps just the vd->e[dr].mode in there could change to
> GET_MODE (src) and drop the previous PR98694 change?
I've bootstrapped/regtested that successfully on the trunk
(on {x86_64,i686}-linux), though haven't at
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:10:33PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> Ah, ok, thanks for the extra context.
>
> So AIUI the problem when recording xmm2<-di isn't just:
>
> [A] partial_subreg_p (vd->e[sr].mode, GET_MODE (src))
>
> but also that:
>
> [B] partial_subreg_p (vd->e[
