On 2011/4/1 01:33 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 22:18 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2011/3/31 06:14 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 11:33 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2011/3/30 05:28 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 22:18 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/3/31 06:14 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 11:33 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> On 2011/3/30 05:28 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:35 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >>>
On 2011/3/31 06:14 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 11:33 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2011/3/30 05:28 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:35 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2011/3/30 上午 12:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, 201
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 11:33 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/3/30 05:28 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:35 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> On 2011/3/30 上午 12:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:53 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >>>
On 2011/3/30 05:28 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:35 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2011/3/30 上午 12:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:53 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2011/3/29 下午 10:26, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-2
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:35 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/3/30 上午 12:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:53 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> On 2011/3/29 下午 10:26, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:25 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2
On 2011/3/30 上午 12:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:53 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2011/3/29 下午 10:26, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:25 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2011/3/24 06:51 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-03
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:53 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/3/29 下午 10:26, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:25 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> On 2011/3/24 06:51 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 12:56 +0900, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi,
On 2011/3/29 下午 10:26, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:25 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2011/3/24 06:51 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 12:56 +0900, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
Hi,
PR48250 happens under TARGET_NEON, where DImode is included with
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:25 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/3/24 06:51 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 12:56 +0900, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> PR48250 happens under TARGET_NEON, where DImode is included within the
> >> valid NEON modes. This turns the rang
On 2011/3/24 06:51 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 12:56 +0900, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Hi,
>> PR48250 happens under TARGET_NEON, where DImode is included within the
>> valid NEON modes. This turns the range of legitimate constant indexes to
>> step-4 (coproc load/store), th
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 12:56 +0900, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi,
> PR48250 happens under TARGET_NEON, where DImode is included within the
> valid NEON modes. This turns the range of legitimate constant indexes to
> step-4 (coproc load/store), thus arm_legitimize_reload_address() when
> trying to dec
Hi,
PR48250 happens under TARGET_NEON, where DImode is included within the
valid NEON modes. This turns the range of legitimate constant indexes to
step-4 (coproc load/store), thus arm_legitimize_reload_address() when
trying to decompose the [reg+index] reload address into
[(reg+index_high)+index_l
13 matches
Mail list logo