On 9/13/18 4:01 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> The register that find_rename_reg is considering is SCC, which is one of
> the "special" registers. There is a short-cut in rename_chains for
> fixed registers, global registers, and frame pointers. It does not
> check HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK.
I wonder i
On 9/13/18 8:08 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 13/09/18 11:01, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>> The assert is caused because the def-use chains indicate that SCC
>> conflicts with itself. I suppose the question is why is it doing that,
>> but it's probably do do with that being a special register that gets
>
> On Sep 13, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> On 13/09/18 15:49, Paul Koning wrote:
>> It's ambiguous, because the last sentence of that paragraph says "addm3 is
>> used if addptrm3 is not defined."
>
> I didn't read that as ambiguous; I read it as addm3 is assumed to work fine
>
On 13/09/18 15:49, Paul Koning wrote:
It's ambiguous, because the last sentence of that paragraph says "addm3 is used if
addptrm3 is not defined."
I didn't read that as ambiguous; I read it as addm3 is assumed to work
fine when addptr is not defined.
I don't know of any change in this area
> On Sep 13, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> On 13/09/18 15:16, Paul Koning wrote:
>> If you don't have machine operations that add without messing with
>> condition codes, wouldn't it make sense to omit the definition of the
>> add-pointer patterns? GCC will build things out of n
On 13/09/18 15:16, Paul Koning wrote:
If you don't have machine operations that add without messing with
condition codes, wouldn't it make sense to omit the definition of the
add-pointer patterns? GCC will build things out of normal
(CC-clobbering) adds if there are no add-pointer operations, wh
> On Sep 13, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> On 13/09/18 11:01, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>> The assert is caused because the def-use chains indicate that SCC conflicts
>> with itself. I suppose the question is why is it doing that, but it's
>> probably do do with that being a special
On 13/09/18 11:01, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
The assert is caused because the def-use chains indicate that SCC
conflicts with itself. I suppose the question is why is it doing that,
but it's probably do do with that being a special register that gets
used in split2 (particularly by the addptrdi3 pat
On 12/09/18 12:29, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
I'll report back when I've done more testing.
I reproduced the problem, in the latest sources, with the
SPECIAL_REGNO_P patch removed (and HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK adjusted
accordingly).
Testcase: gcc.c-torture/compile/20020706-2.c -O3 -funroll-loops
du
On 12/09/18 16:31, Richard Henderson wrote:
How is this different from HARD_REGNO_RENAME_OK via the TO argument?
Seems like the hook you're looking for already exists...
I don't know how we got here (I didn't do the original work), but the
SPECIAL_REGNO_P was indeed used in HARD_REGNO_RENAME_O
On 09/05/2018 04:48 AM, a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
> @@ -1198,6 +1198,10 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME
> respectively. If not, see
> #define NO_FUNCTION_CSE false
> #endif
>
> +#ifndef SPECIAL_REGNO_P
> +#define SPECIAL_REGNO_P(REGNO) false
> +#endif
> +
> #ifndef HARD_REGN
On 11/09/18 23:42, Jeff Law wrote:
This feels like you're papering over a problem in regrename and/or the
GCN port.. regrename should be checking the predicate and constraints
when it makes changes. And I think that you're still allowed to refer
to a fixed register in alternatives.
I think yo
On 9/5/18 5:48 AM, a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
>
> GCN has some registers which are special purpose, but not "fixed" because we
> want the register allocator to track their usage and select alternatives that
> use different special registers (e.g. scalar cc vs. vector cc).
>
> Sometimes this lea
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, a...@codesourcery.com wrote:
> This patch creates a new macro SPECIAL_REGNO_P which disables regrename. In
> other words, the register is fixed once allocated.
Creating new target macros is generally suspect - the presumption is that
target hooks should be used instead, unle
14 matches
Mail list logo
