On 07/02/14 00:23, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If
so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an
error ?
I don't think we can define any r
On 07/01/14 13:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My
recommendation would be for this to be considered a hard error.
Uh? The doc explicitly says "An input operand can be tied to an
earlyclobber operand" and goes on to explain why that is useful.
On 2014-07-01, 3:27 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Vladimir,
There are a few patterns which use both the read/write constraint
modifier (+) and the earlyclobber constraint modifier (&):
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, shou
On 2 July 2014 08:02, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> On 02-07-14 08:23, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it could have used (match_dup 0) instead of operand 1, if there
>>> had been only the first alternative. And then the constraint would have been
>>> +&.
>>
On 02-07-14 11:36, Marc Glisse wrote:
(did you drop the lists on purpose?)
That was a glitch, sorry.
[ Adds list back ]
Thanks,
- Tom
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
An earlyclobber operand X prevents *other* input operands from using the same
register, but that does not include X
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 02-07-14 09:02, Marc Glisse wrote:
Still, the meaning of +&, in inline asm for instance, seems relatively
clear, no?
I can't find any testsuite examples using this construct.
Furthermore, I'd expect the same semantics and restrictions for constraint
On 02-07-14 09:02, Marc Glisse wrote:
Still, the meaning of +&, in inline asm for instance, seems relatively clear,
no?
I can't find any testsuite examples using this construct.
Furthermore, I'd expect the same semantics and restrictions for constraints in
rtl templates and inline asm.
So
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 02-07-14 08:23, Marc Glisse wrote:
I think it could have used (match_dup 0) instead of operand 1, if there
had been only the first alternative. And then the constraint would have
been +&.
isn't that explicitly listed as unsupported here (
https://g
On 02-07-14 08:23, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any r
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My
recomme
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My
recommendation would be for this to be considered
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/01/14 13:27, Tom de Vries wrote:
Vladimir,
There are a few patterns which use both the read/write constraint
modifier (+) and the earlyclobber constraint modifier (&):
...
$ grep -c 'match_operand.*+.*&' gcc/config/*/* | grep -v :0
gcc/config/aarch64/a
On 07/01/14 13:27, Tom de Vries wrote:
Vladimir,
There are a few patterns which use both the read/write constraint
modifier (+) and the earlyclobber constraint modifier (&):
...
$ grep -c 'match_operand.*+.*&' gcc/config/*/* | grep -v :0
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md:1
gcc/config/arc/arc.md
13 matches
Mail list logo
