On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
remove
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
>>> removed? It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
>>
>> You
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
>> removed? It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
>
> You mean -fno-lra, and s/IRA/LRA/, right? I think the reas
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
> removed? It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
You mean -fno-lra, and s/IRA/LRA/, right? I think the reason for no
compiler switch is that while returning false from ix
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "H.J. Lu"
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:58 -0700
>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov
>>> wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It
From: "H.J. Lu"
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:58 -0700
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov
>> wrote:
>>> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
>>> LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by imp
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
>> LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals
>> which resulted in a lot of new
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> And PR bootstrap/55068 due to assert failure in push_reload() .
GCC bootstrapped on AIX with your patches. Thanks for fixing the
problems so quickly.
- David
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:34:00 +0100
> David Miller writes:
>> I'll add the straightforward check to sparc's legitimate_address_p,
>> but I'm really surprised you never hit this case in your testing.
>
> Adding the check sounds like the right thing to do. And remember
David Miller writes:
> From: David Miller
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> From: David Miller
>> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>> The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
>>> extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must u
From: David Miller
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:06:55 -0400 (EDT)
> From: David Miller
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
>> extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must use
>> define_memory_constraint.
And PR bootstrap/55068 due to assert failure in push_reload() .
Thanks, David
This also causes PR bootstrap/55067 on AIX due to the use of typedef loc_t.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
> LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals
> which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in
> comparison with
On 10/23/12 16:46, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not
happen. LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing
reviewer's proposals which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on
GCC testsuite in comparison with reload. Finally,
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:17:48AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > Sparc accepts addresses of the form:
>> >
>> > (plus:DI (lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 282)
>> > (symbol_ref:DI ("__mf_opts") ))
>> > (const_int 40 [0x28]))
>> >
>> > These make use of Sparc's offseta
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:17:48AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Sparc accepts addresses of the form:
> >
> > (plus:DI (lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 282)
> > (symbol_ref:DI ("__mf_opts") ))
> > (const_int 40 [0x28]))
> >
> > These make use of Sparc's offsetable %lo() relocations.
>
> Hmm,
David Miller writes:
> From: David Miller
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
>> extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must use
>> define_memory_constraint.
>>
>> Otherwise the EXTRA_MEMORY_CONSTRAINT
On 24.10.2012 08:55, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen. LRA
>> was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals which
>> resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on G
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen.
LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals
which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in comparison
with reload. Finally,
From: David Miller
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
> The first issue sparc runs into is that it does not define it's
> extra constraints properly. In particular 'T' and 'W' must use
> define_memory_constraint.
>
> Otherwise the EXTRA_MEMORY_CONSTRAINT logic in process_alt_operands()
From: Vladimir Makarov
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:04:03 -0400
> I am not sure that anything except x86/x86-64 will work now on the
> branch. There were too many changes on the branch and I tested only
> x86/x86-64. I'll start testing the rest of targets on the branch
> next week when LRA is sett
On 12-10-23 5:28 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Vladimir Makarov
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:46:34 -0400
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not
happen. LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing
reviewer's proposals which resulted in a lot of new LRA
From: Vladimir Makarov
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:46:34 -0400
> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not
> happen. LRA was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing
> reviewer's proposals which resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on
> GCC testsuite in comp
On 10/23/2012 01:57 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen. LRA was
actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals which
resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in comparison with
reload. Fina
Hello!
> Hi, I was going to merge LRA into trunk last Sunday. It did not happen. LRA
> was actively changed last 4 weeks by implementing reviewer's proposals which
> resulted in a lot of new LRA regressions on GCC testsuite in comparison with
> reload. Finally, they were fixed and everything lo
26 matches
Mail list logo
