On 12/13/2017 07:34 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 10/16/2017 10:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
This is another version of the patch to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada.
Committed as rev. 253796.
Hi
On 10/16/2017 10:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
This is another version of the patch to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada.
Committed as rev. 253796.
Hi Vladimir,
AFAIU this bit of the patch makes
This is another version of the patch to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada.
Committed as rev. 253796.
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog
On 10/12/2017 10:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>> Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your
>>> change, ok for trunk?
>
> BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:05:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
> On 10/12/2017 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > > > Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your
> > > > change,
On 10/12/2017 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your
change, ok for trunk?
BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I've
cooked
Hi!
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your
> > change, ok for trunk?
BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I've
cooked up a runtime test that fails before your
Hello!
> The following patch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
>
> LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are
> part of insn patterns
> like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance in EBB which creates only moves
> and they usually
> have
On 10/11/2017 05:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are
part of insn patterns like
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
>
> LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are
> part of insn patterns like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which
are part of insn patterns like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance in
EBB which creates only moves and they usually have no embedded hard regs
11 matches
Mail list logo