Hello all,
Recently i noticed that register allocation for the operands in a
unspec pattern was going wrong.
This was because there was no conflict between the registers used in
the unspec pattern and the other registers which should have been
there.
During debugging i found out that the code is w
> This is a 16bit target. SF uses two registers.So There its proper.
Then try to backport revision 130733:
2007-12-10 Pranav Bhandarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* caller-save.c (insert_one_insn): If inserting before a call_insn
the
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (insn 211 210 215 1 (set (reg:HI 1 R1 [+2 ])
>> (subreg:HI (reg/v:SF 207 [ d.104 ]) 2)) 4 {movhi_regmove}
>> (insn_list:REG_DEP_TRUE 208 (nil))
>> (nil))
>>
>> (call_insn/u 215 211 217 1 (set (reg:HI 0 R0)
>>
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080516 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080516/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> (insn 211 210 215 1 (set (reg:HI 1 R1 [+2 ])
> (subreg:HI (reg/v:SF 207 [ d.104 ]) 2)) 4 {movhi_regmove}
> (insn_list:REG_DEP_TRUE 208 (nil))
> (nil))
>
> (call_insn/u 215 211 217 1 (set (reg:HI 0 R0)
> (call:HI (mem:HI (reg/f:HI 234) [0 S2 A16])
> (const_int 0 [0x
This merge brings in all the patches that I applied earlier to trunk.
The only differences between trunk and lto now should be the lto
specific bits.
Diego.
Hi,
Mail archives on gcc.gnu.org haven't been updated for several hours.
Many mails/checkins are missing. Is there something wrong?
H.J.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mohamed Shafi wrote:
>>
>> For the source or the destination register Rd/Ra, the restriction is
>> that it should be one more than the base register . So the following
>> instructions are valid:
>
> GCC doesn't provide any easy
