On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:12 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw writes:
> > I'm uncomfortable about this. Generally the ARM port doesn't work well
> > with the target-independent constant pool and it's better to assert that
> > this is empty when it comes to final assembly generat
Richard Earnshaw writes:
> I'm uncomfortable about this. Generally the ARM port doesn't work well
> with the target-independent constant pool and it's better to assert that
> this is empty when it comes to final assembly generation. Can you
> clarify by way of example how this patch is working p
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 11:34 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This patch fixed PR target/46329, which is a problem that occurs
> when trying to reload:
>
> (set (reg:OI foo) (const_int 0))
>
> There is no move alternative for moving constants directly into large
> numbers of VFPs, and it pro
This patch fixed PR target/46329, which is a problem that occurs
when trying to reload:
(set (reg:OI foo) (const_int 0))
There is no move alternative for moving constants directly into large
numbers of VFPs, and it probably isn't going to be sensible to do that
for all constants, even if prop
