On 04/13/2018 05:26 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:43:02PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 04/13/2018 03:58 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
Here's another compact variant:
regno = reg_renumber[regno];
if (regno < 0)
regno = cl ==
Hi!
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:43:02PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 04/13/2018 03:58 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >Here's another compact variant:
> >
> > regno = reg_renumber[regno];
> > if (regno < 0)
> > regno = cl == NO_REGS ? -1 : ira_class_hard_regs[cl][1];
> >
>
On 04/13/2018 03:58 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
if (reg_renumber[regno] >= 0)
regno = reg_renumber[regno];
else
regno = cl == NO_REGS ? -1 : ira_class_hard_regs[cl][1];
or
regno = (reg_renumber[reg
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> if (reg_renumber[regno] >= 0)
> regno = reg_renumber[regno];
> else
> regno = cl == NO_REGS ? -1 : ira_class_hard_regs[cl][1];
> or
> regno = (reg_renumber[regno] >= 0
> ? reg_renumber[regno]
>
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 03:29:47PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The attached patch fixes
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79916
>
> The PR is about LRA cycling on some tests when SD data are used. The
> problem was in that actual assigned reg to pseudo was not in the pseu
The attached patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79916
The PR is about LRA cycling on some tests when SD data are used. The
problem was in that actual assigned reg to pseudo was not in the pseudo
preferred class and this resulted in wrong generated code which LRA
tri
