On 26 March 2014 15:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:30:44PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Agree. CSE should never modify asm insns to drop some of the outputs.
>
> So the right fix is top prevent this from happening, not papering over about
> it.
>>
>> But in this case, CSE
On 26 March 2014 15:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:30:44PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Agree. CSE should never modify asm insns to drop some of the outputs.
>
> So the right fix is top prevent this from happening, not papering over about
> it.
>>
>> But in this case, CSE
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:30:44PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Agree. CSE should never modify asm insns to drop some of the outputs.
So the right fix is top prevent this from happening, not papering over about
it.
>
> But in this case, CSE does not drop any of the outputs. It just takes
> the
On 26 March 2014 15:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:16:16PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> The patch checks the number of the expected operands in
>> ASM_OPERANDS_TEMPLATE with the same logic as it in output_asm_insn to
>> make sure the ASM_OPERANDS are legal.
>>
>> Bootstra
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:16:16PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> The patch checks the number of the expected operands in
> ASM_OPERANDS_TEMPLATE with the same logic as it in output_asm_insn to
> make sure the ASM_OPERANDS are legal.
>
> Bootstrap and no make check regression on X86-64 and ARM chr
