On 2020-03-20 1:19 p.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ping
Richard, sorry. I missed your original message.
Richard Sandiford writes:
[See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/541694.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/541759.html
for a walkthrough
Ping
Richard Sandiford writes:
> [See:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/541694.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/541759.html
>
> for a walkthrough of what goes wrong in the testcase, but hopefully
> the change makes sense on first principles.]
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> I think there are two problems with this:
>>
>> (1) It never actually checks whether the hard register is valid for the
>> outer mode (in the hard_regno_mode_ok sense). If it isn't, any attempt
>> to reload in the outer mode is likely to cycle, because the implie
> I think there are two problems with this:
>
> (1) It never actually checks whether the hard register is valid for the
> outer mode (in the hard_regno_mode_ok sense). If it isn't, any attempt
> to reload in the outer mode is likely to cycle, because the implied
> regno/mode combinati