Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-25 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! I have committed following patch that also implements ix86_target_string handling of the new option. 2016-05-25 Uros Bizjak H.J. Lu PR target/70738 * common/config/i386/i386-common.c (OPTION_MASK_ISA_GENERAL_REGS_ONLY_UNSET): New. (ix86_handle_option) : Disabl

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-25 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Joseph Myers > wrote: >> On Tue, 24 May 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >>> > I have thrown together a quick patch that defines target_flags as >>> > HOST_WIDE_INT. >>> > >>> > (Patch still needs a small correct

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-25 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > >> > I have thrown together a quick patch that defines target_flags as >> > HOST_WIDE_INT. >> > >> > (Patch still needs a small correction, so opth-gen.awk will emit >> > HOST_WIDE_INT_1 for MASK_* d

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread Joseph Myers
On Tue, 24 May 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > I have thrown together a quick patch that defines target_flags as > > HOST_WIDE_INT. > > > > (Patch still needs a small correction, so opth-gen.awk will emit > > HOST_WIDE_INT_1 for MASK_* defines, have to go now, but I was able to > > compile functiona

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> > Oh, target_flags is only a 32bit integer :(. Is there a reason it > ca

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Oh, target_flags is only a 32bit integer :(. Is there a reason it can't be extended to HOST_WIDE_INT, as is the case with >>>

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> Oh, target_flags is only a 32bit integer :(. Is there a reason it >>> can't be extended to HOST_WIDE_INT, as is the case with >>> ix86_isa_flags? >> >> target_flags is generic, not target s

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Oh, target_flags is only a 32bit integer :(. Is there a reason it >> can't be extended to HOST_WIDE_INT, as is the case with >> ix86_isa_flags? > > target_flags is generic, not target specific. I want to limit my > change to x86 backend and -mge

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> > No, this is a flag, not a variable. Let's figure out how to extend > tar

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> No, this is a flag, not a variable. Let's figure out how to extend target flags to more than 63 flags first. >>> >>> Extending tar

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> No, this is a flag, not a variable. Let's figure out how to extend >>> target flags to more than 63 flags first. >> >> Extending target flags to more than 63 bits requires replacing >> HOST

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> No, this is a flag, not a variable. Let's figure out how to extend >> target flags to more than 63 flags first. > > Extending target flags to more than 63 bits requires replacing > HOST_WIDE_INT with a bit vector. Since target flags is used in >

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-24 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Rainer Orth >> wrote: >>> "H.J. Lu" writes: >>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> Here is a patch to add >>> -mgeneral-reg

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-22 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Rainer Orth >> wrote: >>> "H.J. Lu" writes: >>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> Here is a patch to add >>> -mgeneral-regs

Re: [PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: >> "H.J. Lu" writes: >> >>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Here is a patch to add >> -mgeneral-regs-only option to x86 backend. We can update >> spec for i

[PATCH] Use flag_general_regs_only with -mgeneral-regs-only

2016-05-20 Thread H.J. Lu
/gcc/genattrtab.c:108: > ./options.h:5443:2: error: #error too many target masks > #error too many target masks > ^ > Makefile:2497: recipe for target 'build/genattrtab.o' failed > make[3]: *** [build/genattrtab.o] Error 1 > > options.h has > > #defi