On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > And again, I'd be perfectly fine with removing this weird
> > LOAD_EXTEND_OP-specific "feature". I'm of half a mind to remove
> > the #define from the MMIX port.
> Please note, that my findings were on 4.3.4 to-be-released bran
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Combine simplifies lshiftrt/shift/and combined instruction under the
assumption, that for ZERO_EXTEND LOAD_EXTEND_OP targets it can prove
that certain bits are zero, so AND operation can be omitted. The
resulting instruction is
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Combine simplifies lshiftrt/shift/and combined instruction under the
> assumption, that for ZERO_EXTEND LOAD_EXTEND_OP targets it can prove
> that certain bits are zero, so AND operation can be omitted. The
> resulting instruction is valid only for memory op
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:51:55PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I guess that somehow we have to prevent choose_reload_regs to blindly
> substitute memory_operand with register when paradoxical subregs are
> involved. The condition for the substitution should be similar to the
> condition in nonzero_
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> I suggest you first find out more what is exactly reloaded and where
> the inheritance occurs - inheritance can be done by choose_reload_regs
> or later in emit_reload_insns and its subfunctions.
>
> I.e. set a breakpoint on find_reloads and
I suggest you first find out more what is exactly reloaded and where
the inheritance occurs - inheritance can be done by choose_reload_regs
or later in emit_reload_insns and its subfunctions.
I.e. set a breakpoint on find_reloads and make it conditional on
insn->u.fld[0].rt_int == 121 && replace
,
