On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:53 PM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:50 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:14 AM liuhongt wrote:
> > >
> > > >Why is the above declared as a special memory constraint? Also the
> > > Change to define_memory_constrai
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:50 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:14 AM liuhongt wrote:
> >
> > >Why is the above declared as a special memory constraint? Also the
> > Change to define_memory_constraint since it's ok for
> > reload can make them match by converting the operand to t
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:14 AM liuhongt wrote:
>
> >Why is the above declared as a special memory constraint? Also the
> Change to define_memory_constraint since it's ok for
> reload can make them match by converting the operand to the form
> ‘(mem (reg X))’.where X is a base register (from the r
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:18 AM liuhongt wrote:
>
> As change in assembler, refer to [1], this patch disallow mask/sse/mmx
> mov in TLS code sequences which require integer MOV instructions.
>
> [1]
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=patch;h=d7e3e627027fcf37d63e284144fe27ff4eba36b
