"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Uros Bizjak writes:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> gcc/
> PR target/55204
> * config/i386/i38
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Uros Bizjak writes:
>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
gcc/
PR target/55204
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_address_subreg_oper
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Uros Bizjak writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> gcc/
>>> PR target/55204
>>> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_address_subreg_operand): Remove stack
>>> pointer check.
>>>
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> gcc/
>> PR target/55204
>> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_address_subreg_operand): Remove stack
>> pointer check.
>> (print_reg): Use true_regnum rather than REGNO.
>> (ix86_pri
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:21 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> This is a case where we had:
>>>
>>> (set (reg:HI foo) (plus:HI (reg:HI sp) (const_int X)))
>>> (clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This is a case where we had:
>>
>> (set (reg:HI foo) (plus:HI (reg:HI sp) (const_int X)))
>> (clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))
>>
>> and the splitters decided to convert it to an LEA:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This is a case where we had:
>
> (set (reg:HI foo) (plus:HI (reg:HI sp) (const_int X)))
> (clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))
>
> and the splitters decided to convert it to an LEA:
>
> (set (reg:SI foo) (plus:SI (subreg:SI (reg:HI sp) 0) (c