tember 26, 2013 8:05 PM
>> To: 'Richard Biener'; Bin.Cheng
>> Cc: GCC Patches; Richard Earnshaw
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
>>
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Ri
CC Patches; Richard Earnshaw
> Subject: RE: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:58 PM
> > To: Bin.Cheng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:58 PM
> To: Bin.Cheng
> Cc: Bin Cheng; GCC Patches; Richard Earnshaw
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
&
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
>>>
>>>
-Original Message-
>>
>> Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about that). But yes, at least reg*scale +
>> offset
>>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>
> Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about that). But yes, at least reg*scale +
> offset
> and reg*scale + reg.
>
>> Apparently it's infeasible to check
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 24/09/13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about that). But yes, at least reg*scale +
>> offset
>> and reg*scale + reg.
>
> I can't conceive of a realistic case where one would want to scale the
> base add
On 24/09/13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
> Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about that). But yes, at least reg*scale +
> offset
> and reg*scale + reg.
I can't conceive of a realistic case where one would want to scale the
base address. Scaling the offset is fine, but never the base. So
reg*scale+
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:08 PM
>> To: Bin Cheng
>> Cc: GCC Patches
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Constr
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:08 PM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 201
On 23/09/13 13:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> What's the problem
> with arm supporting reg1 * scale? Why shouldn't it being able to handle
> the implicit zero offset?
Something like "we don't have an instruction that can do that"...
Valid addresses are of the general form
address:=
'[' base-r
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM, bin.cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> For now IVOPT constructs scaled address expression in the form of
> "scaled*index" and checks whether backend supports it. The problem is the
> address expression is invalid on ARM, causing scaled expression disabled in
> IVOPT on ARM. Th
Hi,
For now IVOPT constructs scaled address expression in the form of
"scaled*index" and checks whether backend supports it. The problem is the
address expression is invalid on ARM, causing scaled expression disabled in
IVOPT on ARM. This patch fixes the IVOPT part by constructing rtl address
expr
12 matches
Mail list logo
