Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Hey Bernd,
Has there been any news or progress on reload-branch lately? It
removes a lot of code that I'd dearly love to see gone...
Unfortunately not. I just don't have the time to work on too many extra
projects at the moment :-( Of course, others could always vo
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 07:15:11PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> >On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 17:50 +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> >
> >>Why not putting it on a branch? If you are going to finish and submit it
> >>for
> >>4.1, it might be easier to use CVS.
> >
> >It might also be
Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11.04.2005 14:43:38:
>* reload.c (find_reloads): Only set INC field if we know we have an
>autoinc reload.
Yes, this helps for s390. With the current reload-branch, and just my
scan_rtx patch on top, I was able to bootstrap and run the test suit
I guess the best solution is to change the place you modified, but to
use a test that checks for autoinc codes. I'll come up with something.
Try this.
Bernd
* reload.c (find_reloads): Only set INC field if we know we have an
autoinc reload.
* reload.h (struct reload): Update comment to match.
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
- As mentioned in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00911.html
there is a code path in find_reloads that sets rld[].inc to a
nonzero value even for a platform that doesn't actually *have*
pre-/post-increment insns, leading to an ICE later on.
Index: gcc/reload.c
Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/20/2005 07:41:14 PM:
> This is OK. Would you check it in?
Done, thanks.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards
Ulrich Weigand
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux for S/390 Design & Development
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, Schoenaicher Str. 2
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
- As mentioned in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00911.html
there is a code path in find_reloads that sets rld[].inc to a
nonzero value even for a platform that doesn't actually *have*
pre-/post-increment insns, leading to an ICE later on.
The patch below simply
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
I have created a new branch, "reload-branch", on which I'm going to
check in these changes.
Thanks - very important first step to make reload "the preferred way to
distribute the software" :-) AKA as complying to the GPL.
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone:
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
What is your plan for this branch? Is there more code refactoring/rewriting
planned, or are you just going to give it a wider testing and fix fallout bugs,
in preparation for a merge?
There's one known design flaw wrt. to enble_optional/disable_optional,
and I think autoinc re
Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It might also be easier for those of us who want to play with the
>>> code, without having to find a suitable sync point between the
>>> patch and
>>> mainline sources.
>>
>> I have created a new branch, "reload-branch", on which I'm going to
>> check i
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> I have created a new branch, "reload-branch", on which I'm going to
> check in these changes.
Thanks!
With three changes described below, I'm able to bootstrap and test the
reload-branch on s390-ibm-linux and s390x-ibm-linux without regressions
against head (except two ad
11 matches
Mail list logo
