On 04/07/16 20:44, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 06/30/2016 01:22 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
Here is the patch,
From my understanding, "offmemok" is used to represent a memory operand
who's address we want to reload, and searching of it's reference location
seems confirmed my understanding as it's alw
gcc-patches has rejected the original message as it contained invalid
MIME type. Therefore I am re-sending it.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [lra] Cleanup the use of offmemok and don't count spilling
cost for it
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:44:25 -0400
From: Vla
On 07/04/2016 04:05 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
And the corresponding s390 patten is "mov" for V_128.
(define_insn "mov"
[(set (match_operand:V_128 0 "" "=v,v,R, v, v, v, v, v,v,d")
(match_operand:V_128 1 "" "v,R,v,j00,jm1,jyy,jxx,jKK,d,v"))]
As the offset "-16" does not qualify s390
On 04/07/16 14:12, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 06/30/2016 07:24 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
From my understanding, "offmemok" is used to represent a memory operand
who's address we want to reload, and searching of it's reference
location
seems confirmed my understanding as it's always used together wi
On 06/30/2016 07:24 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
From my understanding, "offmemok" is used to represent a memory operand
who's address we want to reload, and searching of it's reference location
seems confirmed my understanding as it's always used together with MEM_P
check.
So this patch does the follo
On 29/06/16 22:31, Jiong Wang wrote:
Andreas Krebbel writes:
On 06/28/2016 04:16 PM, Jiong Wang wrote:
...
So my first impression is TARGET_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS_P on s390 do need a
fix here. The following draft patch fix this, my fix may be in
correct as normally we will allow illegal constant o
