Jeff Law via Gcc-patches writes:
> On 4/18/23 07:02, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> "Victor L. Do Nascimento" writes:
>>> The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
>>> memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
>>> satisfied, creati
On 4/18/23 07:02, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
"Victor L. Do Nascimento" writes:
The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
satisfied, creating potential issues as observed during the re
"Victor L. Do Nascimento" writes:
> The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
> memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
> satisfied, creating potential issues as observed during the reload
> compilation pass.
>
> In addition, it was observed t
The function `constrain_operands' lacked the logic to consider relaxed
memory constraints when "traditional" memory constraints were not
satisfied, creating potential issues as observed during the reload
compilation pass.
In addition, it was observed that while `constrain_operands' chooses
to disr
