On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 08:01:57AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi! Some comments...
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:54:08PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > The first patch in the series moves most of the reg_addr structure from
> > rs6000.c to rs6000-protos.h, so that in the next patch,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 07:01:18PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> In patch #4, I mentioned that the spec 2006 benchmark 'tonto' generated
> different with the patches applied. I tracked it down, and it was due to the
> call I inserted in rs6000_debug_reg_print to update the conditional register
Hi! Some comments...
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:54:08PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> The first patch in the series moves most of the reg_addr structure from
> rs6000.c to rs6000-protos.h, so that in the next patch, we can start splitting
> some of the address code to other files.
Is that the
In patch #4, I mentioned that the spec 2006 benchmark 'tonto' generated
different with the patches applied. I tracked it down, and it was due to the
call I inserted in rs6000_debug_reg_print to update the conditional register
usage seemed to set the Altivec registers VS0..VS19 to call_used instead
I am starting to work on cleaning up the memory addressing support in the GCC 9
time frame. At the moment, I am working on upgrading the infrastructure to
allow in the future to prevent splitting memory on 64-bit LE systems too early,
rework the fusion support, and provide a pathway for future pro
