On 8/12/24 10:12 AM, Xianmiao Qu wrote:
The previous patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d8a6945c6ea22efa4d5e42fe1922d2b27953c8cd
aimed to eliminate redundant MOV instructions by removing calling
emit_clobber in lower-subreg.cc's resolve_simple_move.
First, I found that anoth
On 8/14/24 10:20 AM, Xianmiao Qu wrote:
As I described in the commit message, the absence of clobber could
potentially lead to the register's lifetime occupying the entire function,
according to the algorithm of the 'df_lr_bb_local_compute' function.
And avoiding unnecessary liveness has alw
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:29:23PM +0800, Xianmiao Qu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 09:58:31PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Note this changes target independent code. So it needs to be bootstrapped
> > and regression tested on one of the primary platforms:
> >
> > > The primary platforms are:
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 09:58:31PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Note this changes target independent code. So it needs to be bootstrapped
> and regression tested on one of the primary platforms:
>
> > The primary platforms are:
> >
> > aarch64-none-linux-gnu
> > arm-linux-gnueabi
> > i586-unknown-fr
; richard.sandiford
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re-add calling emit_clobber in lower-subreg.cc's
resolve_simple_move.
On 8/14/24 3:53 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> FWIW, I think the work to add a df subreg liveness tracking problem
> and use it in LRA/IRA would solve the live range problem witho
On 8/14/24 3:53 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
FWIW, I think the work to add a df subreg liveness tracking problem
and use it in LRA/IRA would solve the live range problem without needing
a clobber. I wonder how that's going? In my last review I suggested
a change in representation (a single
Jeff Law writes:
> On 8/12/24 10:12 AM, Xianmiao Qu wrote:
>> The previous patch:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d8a6945c6ea22efa4d5e42fe1922d2b27953c8cd
>> aimed to eliminate redundant MOV instructions by removing calling
>> emit_clobber in lower-subreg.cc's resolve_simple_move.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 09:13:37AM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> Hi Xianmiao,
> I have no objection to reverting that original patch, if it was indeed made
> obsolete by
> later changes to the i386 backend.
>
> The theory at the time was that it was possible for backends to define mov
> instructi
On 8/12/24 10:12 AM, Xianmiao Qu wrote:
The previous patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d8a6945c6ea22efa4d5e42fe1922d2b27953c8cd
aimed to eliminate redundant MOV instructions by removing calling
emit_clobber in lower-subreg.cc's resolve_simple_move.
First, I found that anoth
nal Message-
> From: Xianmiao Qu
> Sent: 12 August 2024 17:12
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: ro...@nextmovesoftware.com; j...@ventanamicro.com; Xianmiao Qu
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Re-add calling emit_clobber in lower-subreg.cc's
> resolve_simple_move.
>
> The
The previous patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d8a6945c6ea22efa4d5e42fe1922d2b27953c8cd
aimed to eliminate redundant MOV instructions by removing calling
emit_clobber in lower-subreg.cc's resolve_simple_move.
First, I found that another patch address this issue:
https://gcc.gnu.
11 matches
Mail list logo
