On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 14:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> But I really think it is a mistake to change HARD_REG_SET itself, at least
> before we are actually there to be able to have a full multi-target cc1 (if
> that is a goal).
I'd agree, but tm.h was already removed from target.h.
Better, we can
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 07:08:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So, if you really want a target hook to return or fill up a HARD_REG_SET,
> I think it is best to pass void * around if we don't to include tm.h back in
> target hook headers.
An alternative would be to put HARD_REG_SET into a struct
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 19:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> And for bigger HARD_REG_SET, making it a struct would mean that all
> functions that use HARD_REG_SET in a read-only way and thus are passed
> a HARD_REG_SET argument rather than HARD_REG_SET * suddenly copy the whole
> bitset
The fix could be
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 06:34:34PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I don't think it is a good idea. A single long HARD_REG_SET is actually
> the common case, at least with 64-bit host, and while we can SRA a struct
> often, several ABIs pass structures less efficiently than plain longs.
And for big
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:29:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 06:17 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >>> --- gcc/target.h 2011-04-06 11:08:17 +
> >>> +++ gcc/target.h 2011-07-27 10:27:56 +
> >>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
> >>>#define GCC_TARGET_H
> >>>
> >>>#include "tm.h"
>
On 07/27/2011 06:17 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> --- gcc/target.h 2011-04-06 11:08:17 +
> +++ gcc/target.h 2011-07-27 10:27:56 +
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
>#define GCC_TARGET_H
>
>#include "tm.h"
> +#include "hard-reg-set.h"
>#include "insn-modes.h"
Please send a patch agai
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> --- gcc/target.h 2011-04-06 11:08:17 +
> +++ gcc/target.h 2011-07-27 10:27:56 +
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
> #define GCC_TARGET_H
>
> #include "tm.h"
> +#include "hard-reg-set.h"
> #include "insn-modes.h"
Please send a patch agains
i would like to see more testing on other platforms. this is a large
patch. but otherwise it looks ok.
On 07/27/2011 08:26 AM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
Hello list,
attached is a fairly intrusive patch that replaces many bitmaps in DF
with HARD_REG_SETs. Tested on i386 - no regressions (bes
