> This part suggests to me that LRA should never be reloading the
> paradoxical subreg meaning the whole SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS checking code in
> simplify_operand_subreg could be removed unconditionally.
Why? For a little-endian target which is neither strict-alignment nor
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIO
Eric Botcazou writes:
> > However in lra-constraints.c:simplify_operand_subreg it quite happily
> > performs a reload using the outer mode in this case and only drops
> > down to the inner mode if the outer mode reload would be slower than
> the inner.
> >
> > Presumably this is safe for non WORD_
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 13:00 +, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> Matthew Fortune writes:
> ...
> > Pseudo 300 is assigned to memory and then LRA produces a simple
> > DImode
> > load from the assigned stack slot. The only instruction to set
> > pseudo
> > 300 is:
> >
> > (insn 247 212 389 3 (set (reg:
> However in lra-constraints.c:simplify_operand_subreg it quite happily
> performs a reload using the outer mode in this case and only drops down to
> the inner mode if the outer mode reload would be slower than the inner.
>
> Presumably this is safe for non WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets as the
Matthew Fortune writes:
...
> Pseudo 300 is assigned to memory and then LRA produces a simple DImode
> load from the assigned stack slot. The only instruction to set pseudo
> 300 is:
>
> (insn 247 212 389 3 (set (reg:SI 300)
> (ne:SI (subreg/s/u:SI (reg/v:DI 231 [ taken ]) 0)
>
Eric Botcazou writes:
> > I'll run testing for at least x86_64, MIPS and another
> > WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target and try to get this committed in the
> > next couple of days so it can get into everyone's testing well before
> release.
>
> No issues found on SPARC.
Thanks Eric.
I'm still boo
> I'll run testing for at least x86_64, MIPS and another
> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target and try to get this committed in the next
> couple of days so it can get into everyone's testing well before release.
No issues found on SPARC.
--
Eric Botcazou
> I'll run testing for at least x86_64, MIPS and another
> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target and try to get this committed in the next
> couple of days so it can get into everyone's testing well before release.
I'm going to give it a try on SPARC.
--
Eric Botcazou
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 01/16/2017 10:47 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> > I'm working on PR target/78660 which is looking like a latent LRA bug.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
> >
> > I believe the problem is in the same area as a bug was fixed
On 01/16/2017 10:47 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
I'm working on PR target/78660 which is looking like a latent LRA bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
I believe the problem is in the same area as a bug was fixed in 2015:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015
10 matches
Mail list logo
