Richard Sandiford schrieb:
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
On 12.01.2017 10:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
On 04.01.2017 20:29, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/04/2017 12:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:42:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
1. reload ha
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> On 12.01.2017 10:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Georg-Johann Lay writes:
>>> On 04.01.2017 20:29, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/04/2017 12:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:42:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> 1. reload has a bug
On 12.01.2017 10:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
On 04.01.2017 20:29, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/04/2017 12:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:42:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
1. reload has a bug that no-one really wants to fix (understandable
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> On 04.01.2017 20:29, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/04/2017 12:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:42:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
1. reload has a bug that no-one really wants to fix (understandable)
2. the bug is triggered by para
Segher Boessenkool schrieb:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:29:49PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
We should split off a new "SUBREGS_OF_MEM_ALLOWED" from !INSN_SCHEDULING,
and then probably even default it to false.
That would work for me :-) The question in my mind would be unexpected
fallout at this poi
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:29:49PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >We should split off a new "SUBREGS_OF_MEM_ALLOWED" from !INSN_SCHEDULING,
> >and then probably even default it to false.
> That would work for me :-) The question in my mind would be unexpected
> fallout at this point in the release pro
On 04.01.2017 20:29, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/04/2017 12:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:42:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
1. reload has a bug that no-one really wants to fix (understandable)
2. the bug is triggered by paradoxical subregs of mems
3. those subregs
Richard Sandiford schrieb:
Segher Boessenkool writes:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Well, if it can be done in the back-end, then that's generally my strong
preference. And the blocker for LRA is that it doesn't support cc0,
hence LRA will require an almost
On 01/04/2017 12:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:42:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
1. reload has a bug that no-one really wants to fix (understandable)
2. the bug is triggered by paradoxical subregs of mems
3. those subregs are normally disabled on targets that
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:42:23PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> 1. reload has a bug that no-one really wants to fix (understandable)
> 2. the bug is triggered by paradoxical subregs of mems
> 3. those subregs are normally disabled on targets that support insn
>scheduling
> 4. therefore, de
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> Well, if it can be done in the back-end, then that's generally my strong
>> preference. And the blocker for LRA is that it doesn't support cc0,
>> hence LRA will require an almost complete rewrite of
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Well, if it can be done in the back-end, then that's generally my strong
> preference. And the blocker for LRA is that it doesn't support cc0,
> hence LRA will require an almost complete rewrite of the avr back-end...
Heh, gettin
On 03.01.2017 14:43, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay writes:
On 02.01.2017 15:54, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This fixes PR78883 which is a problem in reload revealed by a
change to combine.c. The fix is as proposed by Seghe
13 matches
Mail list logo
