Jeff Law writes:
> On 04/16/14 07:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> Creating a (mem (scratch)) too early may pessimize code too much,
>> perhaps it can be used during say sched1 etc. for alias analysis, (mem
>> (scratch)) is considered to alias everything,.
>> Plus, I think at least so far we have no
On 04/16/14 07:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Creating a (mem (scratch)) too early may pessimize code too much,
perhaps it can be used during say sched1 etc. for alias analysis, (mem
(scratch)) is considered to alias everything,.
Plus, I think at least so far we have not been doing different decisions
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> Anyway, others can have different opinion on what "X" should mean,
>> CCing Jeff and Eric.
>
> I personally think that we should not change it and adjust LRA instead to
> error out instead of ICEing (even if this means erroring out in a few more
> cases with LRA than wit
> Anyway, others can have different opinion on what "X" should mean,
> CCing Jeff and Eric.
I personally think that we should not change it and adjust LRA instead to
error out instead of ICEing (even if this means erroring out in a few more
cases with LRA than with reload for now, e.g. gcc.dg/to
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:24:06PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > side-effect of inline-asm on certain location in memory, but don't really
> > need the address of that memory. Often "memory" is too big hammer,
> > people often say that certain inline-asm uses or sets or uses/sets or
> > clob
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43:12AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "X" was defined against reload, which always reloaded MEM addresses
>> to follow the appropriate base and index register classes. This was
>> done as a first pass before matching against the constraints:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:43:12AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "X" was defined against reload, which always reloaded MEM addresses
> to follow the appropriate base and index register classes. This was
> done as a first pass before matching against the constraints:
I think it would be fine i
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> As Robert pointed out here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>>
>> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
>> The value at expand time is sensible, but
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 09:53:16PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> As Robert pointed out here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>>
>> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
>> The value at expand time is sensib
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> As Robert pointed out here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>
> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
> The value at expand time is sensible, but after that asm_operand_ok
> allow
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 09:53:16PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> As Robert pointed out here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00416.html
>
> we're a bit too eager when folding stuff into an 'X' constraint.
> The value at expand time is sensible, but after that asm_operand_
11 matches
Mail list logo
