Jeff Law via Gcc-patches writes:
> On 4/18/23 07:02, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> "Victor L. Do Nascimento" writes:
>>> The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
>>> memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
>>> satisfied,
On 4/18/23 07:02, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
"Victor L. Do Nascimento" writes:
The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
satisfied, creating potential issues as observed during the
"Victor L. Do Nascimento" writes:
> The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
> memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
> satisfied, creating potential issues as observed during the reload
> compilation pass.
>
> In addition, it was observed
The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
satisfied, creating potential issues as observed during the reload
compilation pass.
In addition, it was observed that while `constrain_operands' chooses
to
