Hi,
I would like to split a movhi instruction from an immediate to a const
address to 2 movqi instructions.
(I'm using gcc 4.5.3 but i dont think it matters in this case)
My motivation is the following:
Code in the form:
OCR2RA = 1;
compiles to:
ldi r24, 0x01 ; 1
ldi r25, 0x00 ; 0
sts 0x00F7,
a little mistake: ofcourse the desired code is:
ldi r24, 0x01 ; 1
sts 0x00F7, __zero_reg__
sts 0x00F6, r24
and not the one posed earlier.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to split a movhi instruction from an immediate to a const
>
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Ilya Lesokhin schrieb:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to split a movhi instruction from an immediate to a const
>> address to 2 movqi instructions.
>> (I'm using gcc 4.5.3 but i dont think it ma
i want to try to do it after the IRA phase, does anyone know if it makes
sence, and if so, is there a macro which tells me that i'm after that phase?
thanks.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Ilya Lesokhin schrieb:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >
> >> Ilya Lesokhin schrieb:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>> I would like to split a movhi instruction
it works great, thanks for all the help.
though i have a few more questions and i'd be glad if you could answer them
for me.
1. when and by whom adjust_insn_length(...) is called?
2. to update my new pattern length all i have to do is recongenise it in
adjust_insn_length(...) ?
3. to implement
you didn't assign anything to ptr1. so *ptr1++ = *ptr2++; is undefined.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Thomas D. Dean
wrote:
> Is this a problem with -Os?
>
> It looks like the compiler has decided that cs is always zero in the code
> below. The cs calculation appears correct.
>
> In spi_copy
Seems to be the same issue as
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13402.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:25 AM Karakó Tibor
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran into a weird situation regarding whether I compile and link the
> code in one go or in two phases.
>
> main.c:
>
> int main() {
> asm("out
