On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > I was wondering if the i386 port maintainers could have a look at this
>> > pattern. Shouldn't we really have two patterns, one to *load* an unaligned
>> > value and one to *store* and unaligned value, and not permit that memory
>> > ac
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> > I was wondering if the i386 port maintainers could have a look at this
>> > pattern. Shouldn't we really have two patterns, one to *load* an unaligned
>> > value and one to *sto
Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > I was wondering if the i386 port maintainers could have a look at this
> > pattern. Shouldn't we really have two patterns, one to *load* an unaligned
> > value and one to *store* and unaligned value, and not permit th
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was running a couple of tests on various platforms in preparation
> of getting the find_reload_subreg_address patch needed by aarch64 upstream:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01421.html
>
> This unfortunately unc
Hello,
I was running a couple of tests on various platforms in preparation
of getting the find_reload_subreg_address patch needed by aarch64 upstream:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01421.html
This unfortunately uncovered a regression in vect-98-big-array.c on i386.
It seems to me t
