On петък, 22 юни 2018 г. 10:37:10 EEST Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 10:01 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> > On четвъртък, 21 юни 2018 г. 17:03:55 EEST Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 06/21/2018 11:44 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >>> On 06/13/2018 02:58 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> From: Dimitar Dim
On 06/21/2018 10:01 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> On четвъртък, 21 юни 2018 г. 17:03:55 EEST Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/21/2018 11:44 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>> On 06/13/2018 02:58 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
From: Dimitar Dimitrov
For some targets, Pmode != UNITS_PER_WORD. Take
On 06/21/2018 10:01 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> On четвъртък, 21 юни 2018 г. 17:03:55 EEST Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/21/2018 11:44 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>> On 06/13/2018 02:58 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
From: Dimitar Dimitrov
For some targets, Pmode != UNITS_PER_WORD. Take
On четвъртък, 21 юни 2018 г. 17:03:55 EEST Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 11:44 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > On 06/13/2018 02:58 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> >> From: Dimitar Dimitrov
> >>
> >> For some targets, Pmode != UNITS_PER_WORD. Take this into account
> >> when marking hard registers
On 06/21/2018 11:44 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
> On 06/13/2018 02:58 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
>> From: Dimitar Dimitrov
>>
>> For some targets, Pmode != UNITS_PER_WORD. Take this into account
>> when marking hard registers as being used.
>>
>> I tested C and C++ testsuits for x86_64 with
On 06/13/2018 02:58 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
From: Dimitar Dimitrov
For some targets, Pmode != UNITS_PER_WORD. Take this into account
when marking hard registers as being used.
I tested C and C++ testsuits for x86_64 with and without this
patch. There was no regression, i.e. gcc.sum and
From: Dimitar Dimitrov
For some targets, Pmode != UNITS_PER_WORD. Take this into account
when marking hard registers as being used.
I tested C and C++ testsuits for x86_64 with and without this
patch. There was no regression, i.e. gcc.sum and g++.sum matched
exactly.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-06-13