On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 November 2014 at 08:34, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: > >> 2014-11-18 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >> >> * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (load_pair<mode>): Split to >> load_pairsi, load_pairdi, load_pairsf and load_pairdf. >> (load_pairsi, load_pairdi, load_pairsf, load_pairdf): Split >> from load_pair<mode>. New alternative to support int/fp >> registers in fp/int mode patterns. >> (store_pair<mode>:): Split to store_pairsi, store_pairdi, >> store_pairsf and store_pairdi. >> (store_pairsi, store_pairdi, store_pairsf, store_pairdf): Split >> from store_pair<mode>. New alternative to support int/fp >> registers in fp/int mode patterns. >> (*load_pair_extendsidi2_aarch64): New pattern. >> (*load_pair_zero_extendsidi2_aarch64): New pattern. >> (aarch64-ldpstp.md): Include. >> * config/aarch64/aarch64-ldpstp.md: New file. >> * config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_gen_adjusted_ldpstp): >> New. >> (extract_base_offset_in_addr): New. >> (aarch64_operands_ok_for_ldpstp): New. >> (aarch64_operands_adjust_ok_for_ldpstp): New. >> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (enum sched_fusion_type): New enum. >> (TARGET_SCHED_FUSION_PRIORITY): New hook. >> (fusion_load_store): New functon. >> (extract_base_offset_in_addr): New function. >> (aarch64_gen_adjusted_ldpstp): New function. >> (aarch64_sched_fusion_priority): New function. >> (aarch64_operands_ok_for_ldpstp): New function. >> (aarch64_operands_adjust_ok_for_ldpstp): New function. >> >> 2014-11-18 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >> >> * gcc.target/aarch64/ldp-stp-1.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/aarch64/ldp-stp-2.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/aarch64/ldp-stp-3.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/aarch64/ldp-stp-4.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/aarch64/ldp-stp-5.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/aarch64/lr_free_1.c: Disable scheduling fusion >> and peephole2 pass. > > Committed, thanks. /Marcus
This patch has a bug in it dealing with volatile mems. It will do a peephole of two volatile mems into a pair which is not correct as the order in the architecture is not defined and might even swap the order of the load/store incorrectly. I noticed this when I was merging in my changes for an improved peephone which already has a check for volatile. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
