On 08/06/2012 11:50 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> In the first patch I did, I had memory_operand and QS, but that
> ran into reload failures. I assumed I'd just made a mistake.
>
> I'll see if I can replicate this for your debugging enjoyment...
I think I had written =S instead of =QS, which of
On 08/06/2012 11:34 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>
> Some more comments on this patch.
>
>> +; Different from movdi_31 in that we have no splitters.
>> +(define_insn "atomic_loaddi_1"
>> + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=d,d,!*f,!*f")
>> +(unspec:DI
Richard Henderson wrote:
Some more comments on this patch.
> +; Different from movdi_31 in that we have no splitters.
> +(define_insn "atomic_loaddi_1"
> + [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=d,d,!*f,!*f")
> + (unspec:DI [(match_operand:DI 1 "s_operand" "Q,S,Q,m")]
The constrain
Split out s390_two_part_insv from s390_expand_cs_hqi to try
harder to use bit insertion instructions in the CAS loop.
---
gcc/config/s390/s390-protos.h |3 +-
gcc/config/s390/s390.c| 141 ++-
gcc/config/s390/s390.md | 401 +
3
