On 30.01.2012 17:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/30/2012 09:44 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Does this help?
That would fix the problem of multiple notes per insn (as we wanted to
do initially), but I didn't understand whether this is the real problem
or the problem is the reload not happy wit
On 01/30/2012 09:44 AM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Does this help?
That would fix the problem of multiple notes per insn (as we wanted to
do initially), but I didn't understand whether this is the real problem
or the problem is the reload not happy with disappearing notes. Also I
can't reprodu
On 01/30/2012 01:22 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Does this help?
Yep, this eliminates all the regressions, thanks!
Committed as r183719. Thanks for testing.
Paolo
> That would fix the problem of multiple notes per insn (as we wanted to do
> initially), but I didn't understand whether this is the real problem or the
> problem is the reload not happy with disappearing notes.
reload maintains a mapping between its internal structures and the RTL stream,
here
> Does this help?
Yep, this eliminates all the regressions, thanks!
--
Eric Botcazou
On 30.01.2012 11:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/29/2012 04:09 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
As discussed in Bugzilla, this is the patch implementing Paolo's
suggestion of killing REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV notes from df_kill_notes. The
code assumes there is at most one such note per insn.
That's wrong tho
On 01/29/2012 04:09 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
As discussed in Bugzilla, this is the patch implementing Paolo's
suggestion of killing REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV notes from df_kill_notes. The
code assumes there is at most one such note per insn.
That's wrong though and wreaks havoc during reload, e.g.:
> > As discussed in Bugzilla, this is the patch implementing Paolo's
> > suggestion of killing REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV notes from df_kill_notes. The
> > code assumes there is at most one such note per insn.
>
> That's wrong though and wreaks havoc during reload, e.g.:
>
> (insn 169 60 62 4 (set (reg:T
> As discussed in Bugzilla, this is the patch implementing Paolo's suggestion
> of killing REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV notes from df_kill_notes. The code assumes
> there is at most one such note per insn.
That's wrong though and wreaks havoc during reload, e.g.:
(insn 169 60 62 4 (set (reg:TF 158)
On 01/19/2012 08:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Ok, thanks for working on this.
> Installed, do you want this for 4.6/4.5?
If yes, please give it at least a couple of weeks on the trunk.
It's fine by me but yes, let's give it time to bake.
Paolo
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:32:41AM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> On 18.01.2012 21:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >On 01/18/2012 05:41 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> >Ok, thanks for working on this.
> Installed, do you want this for 4.6/4.5?
If yes, please give it at least a couple of weeks on th
On 18.01.2012 21:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/18/2012 05:41 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Ok, thanks for working on this.
Installed, do you want this for 4.6/4.5?
Andrey
On 01/18/2012 05:41 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
As discussed in Bugzilla, this is the patch implementing Paolo's
suggestion of killing REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV notes from df_kill_notes. The
code assumes there is at most one such note per insn. Bootstrapped and
tested on x86-64, ok for trunk?
13 matches
Mail list logo
