On 2/20/19 9:12 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:47:04PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ok.
Thanks for working on this.
Sorry for the endless story here, but I've realized that the *arm_ldrd and
*arm_strd instructions are the only remaining uses of the undocumented
internal
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:47:04PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Ok.
>
> Thanks for working on this.
Sorry for the endless story here, but I've realized that the *arm_ldrd and
*arm_strd instructions are the only remaining uses of the undocumented
internal constraint q and that it isn't really ne
On 2/17/19 7:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:08:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
So like the patch below (though, I have only limited possibilities to test
this, can throw it in armv7hl-linux-gnueabi distro build).
Actually, that patch was bad, I misread the CORE_REGS v
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:08:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So like the patch below (though, I have only limited possibilities to test
> this, can throw it in armv7hl-linux-gnueabi distro build).
Actually, that patch was bad, I misread the CORE_REGS vs. GENERAL_REGS
hardregset difference, it
On 2/11/19 2:35 PM, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
On 10/02/19 09:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> Both this simple patch or the previous fix all the ICEs I reported,
thanks.
>
> Of course, the scan-assembler failures remain to be fixed.
>
In the testcase I failed to account for targets that don't s
On 10/02/19 09:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> Both this simple patch or the previous fix all the ICEs I reported, thanks.
>
> Of course, the scan-assembler failures remain to be fixed.
>
In the testcase I failed to account for targets that don't support arm
mode or
targets that do not support
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:32:23AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> I think this is ok.
Ok, committed the simpler version.
> The "q" constraint was introduced after the iwmmxt.md patterns were written
> and it seems
> that they were just never updated to use it.
> It's hard for anyone to get a hol
Hi Jakub,
On 08/02/19 11:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:29:10AM +, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
> I'm pretty sure there's no difference between the iwmmxt target and
> others so believe your simpler fix of just using 'q' is a good idea.
> (there's no difference in gas and n
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 10:42:55AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > 2019-02-08 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR bootstrap/88714
> > * config/arm/ldrdstrd.md (*arm_ldrd, *arm_strd): Use q constraint
> > instead of r.
> >
>
> Both this simple patch or the previous fix all the ICE
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 12:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:29:10AM +, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure there's no difference between the iwmmxt target and
> > others so believe your simpler fix of just using 'q' is a good idea.
> > (there's no difference in ga
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:29:10AM +, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
> I'm pretty sure there's no difference between the iwmmxt target and
> others so believe your simpler fix of just using 'q' is a good idea.
> (there's no difference in gas and no documentation I have found mentions
> a difference
On 08/02/19 10:23, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:06:02AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 10:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
I'm afaid this patch causes several regressions. Maybe they
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:06:02AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 10:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > I'm afaid this patch causes several regressions. Maybe they have
> > > already been fixed post-commit
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 10:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > I'm afaid this patch causes several regressions. Maybe they have
> > already been fixed post-commit (I have several validations for later
> > commits still running)?
>
> The f
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> I'm afaid this patch causes several regressions. Maybe they have
> already been fixed post-commit (I have several validations for later
> commits still running)?
The following patch fixes the single ICE I've tried to reproduce.
Whi
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 15:44, Matthew Malcomson
wrote:
>
> These peepholes match a pair of SImode loads or stores that can be
> implemented with a single LDRD or STRD instruction.
> When compiling for TARGET_ARM, these peepholes originally created a set
> pattern in DI mode to be caught by movdi pa
>>
>
> Please add the PR marker to the testsuite ChangeLog as well.
> I've been following this PR a bit from the sidelines, I believe a
> substantial amount of code
> (and one of the testcases) was written by Jakub, so please add him to
> the ChangeLog entries as well.
>
> This looks ok to me
Hi Matthew,
On 05/02/19 14:44, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
These peepholes match a pair of SImode loads or stores that can be
implemented with a single LDRD or STRD instruction.
When compiling for TARGET_ARM, these peepholes originally created a set
pattern in DI mode to be caught by movdi patterns
These peepholes match a pair of SImode loads or stores that can be
implemented with a single LDRD or STRD instruction.
When compiling for TARGET_ARM, these peepholes originally created a set
pattern in DI mode to be caught by movdi patterns.
This approach failed to take into account the possibilit
19 matches
Mail list logo
