On 06/01/2011 06:06 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> From the internals description, HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM appears to
> serve different purpose, and sources indicate that it is used similar,
> i.e. per regno == HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM instead if having a rtx or
> reg_class and test for overlaps
Bernd Schmidt schrieb:
> On 06/01/2011 05:35 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
>> The reason for why a subreg of hardreg is there during reload is that
>> on avr, r29:r28 is the frame pointer (word_mode is QI and Pmode is
>> HI). Because in many places of the compiler, there are tests like "if
>> (reg
On 06/01/2011 05:35 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> The reason for why a subreg of hardreg is there during reload is that
> on avr, r29:r28 is the frame pointer (word_mode is QI and Pmode is
> HI). Because in many places of the compiler, there are tests like "if
> (regno == FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)", t
Bernd Schmidt schrieb:
> On 06/01/2011 04:00 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Eric Botcazou schrieb:
You are right, I was staring at the wrong place. subreg of hardreg
should not be there.
>>> You can take a look at PR target/48830, this is a related problem for the
>>> SPARC where reload
On 06/01/2011 04:00 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Eric Botcazou schrieb:
>>> You are right, I was staring at the wrong place. subreg of hardreg
>>> should not be there.
>>
>> You can take a look at PR target/48830, this is a related problem for the
>> SPARC where reload generates:
>>
>> (set (reg:
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
>> You are right, I was staring at the wrong place. subreg of hardreg
>> should not be there.
>
> You can take a look at PR target/48830, this is a related problem for the
> SPARC where reload generates:
>
> (set (reg:SI 708 [ D.2989+4 ])
> (subreg:SI (reg:DI 72 %f40)
> You are right, I was staring at the wrong place. subreg of hardreg
> should not be there.
You can take a look at PR target/48830, this is a related problem for the
SPARC where reload generates:
(set (reg:SI 708 [ D.2989+4 ])
(subreg:SI (reg:DI 72 %f40) 4))
and (subreg:SI (reg:DI 72 %f40)
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
Perhaps the original subreg shouldn't have been there?
Yes, I'd think that everything in the RTL middle-end expects word-mode subregs
of double-word-mode hard regs to be simplifiable.
You are right, I was staring at the wrong place. subreg of hardreg
should not be th
> Don't see a strict-low-part here. Why do you believe that this
> should have an input reload?
This is AVR so QImode is the word mode and the strict-low-part is implicit.
> Perhaps the original subreg shouldn't have been there?
Yes, I'd think that everything in the RTL middle-end expects word-
On 05/26/2011 06:53 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Trying to track faulty code generation because of a missing input
> reload, I got lost in reload and need some help.
>
> The insn to reload (insn 7) is
>
> (set (subreg:QI (reg:HI 28) 0)
> (const_int 0))
>
> This insn generates one output re
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> so there is a missing input reload, i.e. prior to insn 7 there must be
> something like
>
> (set (reg:HI 28)
> (reg:HI 24))
>
Typo, that should read:
(set (reg:HI 24)
(reg:HI 28))
prior to insn 7.
11 matches
Mail list logo