On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:09 AM Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
> Hello Wilco,
>
> Would you have further thoughts on the patches proposed in
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01453.html
>
> ?
>
> There was:
>
> 1) * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (PROBE_STACK_FIRST_REG) : Redefine as
>
Hello Wilco,
Would you have further thoughts on the patches proposed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01453.html
?
There was:
1) * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (PROBE_STACK_FIRST_REG) : Redefine as
R9_REGNUM instead of 9.
(PROBE_STACK_SECOND_REG): Redefine as R10_REGNUM
Hi Wilco,
> On 18 Oct 2018, at 19:08, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> I wondered if we could set it to R11 unconditionally and picked
>> the way ensuring no change for !vxworks ports, especially since I
>> don't have means to test more than what I described above.
>
> Yes it should always be the same
Hi Olivier,
> STATIC_CHAIN_REGNUM still needs to be adjusted directly I think.
>
> I wondered if we could set it to R11 unconditionally and picked
> the way ensuring no change for !vxworks ports, especially since I
> don't have means to test more than what I described above.
Yes it should always
Hi Kyrill,
> On 16 Oct 2018, at 18:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to move that part to aarch64_conditional_register_usage
>> if that's considered more canonical of course.
>
> I don't think it's more canonical, and it is a run-time thing, whereas your
> patch changes things
> at
> On 18 Oct 2018, at 15:10, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
> The only difference there would be wrt to this part
> is the use of the macro within called_used_regs[] as well,
> part of what we discussed with Kyrill.
Ah, no, call_used[r18] is 1 currently.
Will give this some thought ...
> On 18 Oct 2018, at 14:14, Sam Tebbs wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2018 07:43 PM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>>> On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
>>> I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap
On 10/12/2018 07:43 PM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap and test)?
Sorry, I failed to mention the testing indeed. We don't
have a
Hi Olivier,
On 12/10/18 19:43, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
Thanks for your feedback!
On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap and test)?
Sorry, I failed
Hi Kyrill,
Thanks for your feedback!
> On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
> I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap and test)?
Sorry, I failed to mention the testing indeed. We don't
have a
Hi Olivier,
On 10/10/18 22:40, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Hello,
The aarch64 "platform register" r18 is currently
unconditionally used as a scratch register by gcc.
Working on a VxWorks port for this arch (that we
plan to contribute soon), we discovered that VxWorks
has an internal use of this
Hello,
The aarch64 "platform register" r18 is currently
unconditionally used as a scratch register by gcc.
Working on a VxWorks port for this arch (that we
plan to contribute soon), we discovered that VxWorks
has an internal use of this register so it needs
to be considered "fixed" for this
12 matches
Mail list logo
