On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:09 AM Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
> Hello Wilco,
>
> Would you have further thoughts on the patches proposed in
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01453.html
>
> ?
>
> There was:
>
> 1) * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (PROBE_STACK_FIRST_REG) : Redefine as
> R
Hello Wilco,
Would you have further thoughts on the patches proposed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01453.html
?
There was:
1) * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (PROBE_STACK_FIRST_REG) : Redefine as
R9_REGNUM instead of 9.
(PROBE_STACK_SECOND_REG): Redefine as R10_REGNUM
Hi Wilco,
> On 18 Oct 2018, at 19:08, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> I wondered if we could set it to R11 unconditionally and picked
>> the way ensuring no change for !vxworks ports, especially since I
>> don't have means to test more than what I described above.
>
> Yes it should always be the same
Hi Olivier,
> STATIC_CHAIN_REGNUM still needs to be adjusted directly I think.
>
> I wondered if we could set it to R11 unconditionally and picked
> the way ensuring no change for !vxworks ports, especially since I
> don't have means to test more than what I described above.
Yes it should always
Hi Kyrill,
> On 16 Oct 2018, at 18:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to move that part to aarch64_conditional_register_usage
>> if that's considered more canonical of course.
>
> I don't think it's more canonical, and it is a run-time thing, whereas your
> patch changes things
> at conf
> On 18 Oct 2018, at 15:10, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
> The only difference there would be wrt to this part
> is the use of the macro within called_used_regs[] as well,
> part of what we discussed with Kyrill.
Ah, no, call_used[r18] is 1 currently.
Will give this some thought ...
> On 18 Oct 2018, at 14:14, Sam Tebbs wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2018 07:43 PM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>>> On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
>>> I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap
On 10/12/2018 07:43 PM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap and test)?
Sorry, I failed to mention the testing indeed. We don't
have a
Hi Olivier,
On 12/10/18 19:43, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
Thanks for your feedback!
On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap and test)?
Sorry, I failed to
Hi Kyrill,
Thanks for your feedback!
> On 12 Oct 2018, at 05:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers as they'll have to approve it.
> I'm guessing you've tested this in the usual way (bootstrap and test)?
Sorry, I failed to mention the testing indeed. We don't
have a nativ
Hi Olivier,
On 10/10/18 22:40, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Hello,
The aarch64 "platform register" r18 is currently
unconditionally used as a scratch register by gcc.
Working on a VxWorks port for this arch (that we
plan to contribute soon), we discovered that VxWorks
has an internal use of this reg
11 matches
Mail list logo
