Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-02-03 Thread Yury Gribov
Uggh - what a mess. Surely that zero_extend:SI (const_int 1) should be replaced by a move somewhere. So I'm all for fixing this but I don't really know where to start. Do you have any suggestions? Julian's patch now looks more like a workaround... -Y

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-02-03 Thread Yury Gribov
> The subreg being replaced is believable, but not the zero_extend. > That would mean we had a simple movhi pattern, not a zero-extend pattern. Sorry, you are right. It's just subreg without zero_extend! -Y

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-02-03 Thread Richard Earnshaw
[this time to the list] On 03/02/14 15:41, Yury Gribov wrote: > > Uggh - what a mess. Surely that zero_extend:SI (const_int 1) should be > > replaced by a move somewhere. > > Actually the whole (zero_extend:SI (subreg:HI ...)) part is replaced by > (const_int 1). It still ends up in constant p

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-02-03 Thread Yury Gribov
> Uggh - what a mess. Surely that zero_extend:SI (const_int 1) should be > replaced by a move somewhere. Actually the whole (zero_extend:SI (subreg:HI ...)) part is replaced by (const_int 1). It still ends up in constant pool though. -Y

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-02-03 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 03/02/14 15:14, Yury Gribov wrote: > > Additionally I'm not really sure > > why there is an additional load from the constant pool here - what is > > the constant in this case ? > > Given it is atmost a 16 bit constant > > surely that should be loaded with a single mov(w) instruction > > i

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-02-03 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Yury Gribov wrote: >> Additionally I'm not really sure >> why there is an additional load from the constant pool here - what is >> the constant in this case ? >> Given it is atmost a 16 bit constant >> surely that should be loaded with a single mov(w) instruction >>

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-02-03 Thread Yury Gribov
> Additionally I'm not really sure > why there is an additional load from the constant pool here - what is > the constant in this case ? > Given it is atmost a 16 bit constant > surely that should be loaded with a single mov(w) instruction > in armv7 land. I've made some investigations with 4.8.

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-01-28 Thread Julian Brown
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:09:27 + Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Yury Gribov > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Julian Brown has proposed patch > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01191.html) for the > > dreadful push_minipool_fix error > > (http://gcc.gnu.or

Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-01-28 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Yury Gribov wrote: > Hi, > > Julian Brown has proposed patch > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01191.html) for the dreadful > push_minipool_fix error (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423) > in June but it didn't seem to get enough attent

[PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns

2014-01-23 Thread Yury Gribov
Hi, Julian Brown has proposed patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01191.html) for the dreadful push_minipool_fix error (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423) in June but it didn't seem to get enough attention. Can we submit it? -- Best regards, Yury