On 2021-03-19 11:42 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
The following patch solves P1 PR99581
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le,
aarch64.
Is it ok for the trunk?
I'm not trying to reject the patch as such. I just think we need to
have a clearer picture first.
I agree that 'o' should be treated as a subset of 'm' and therefore its
definition should have a check as 'm' has. Still my patch is not about
treatment of constraint 'o' only.
My approach for LRA development is minimal changes, as radical changes
(even if they look right) results long lasting unpredictable effects on
many targets.
The patch in which you introduced a new function valid_address_p and new
treatment of **all** memory constraints was too big change with this
point of view and finally it resulted in this problem after recent
partially fixing mess in process_address_1.
My patch fixes this radical change. So I think we still need the patch
I've submitted.
