Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I suppose we could add a target macro to let individual ports turn
off REG_NO_CONFLICT generation? Any other ideas?
A pass to reorder insns so that live ranges are shortened and register
pressure is relieved.
I think you coul
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suppose we could add a target macro to let individual ports turn
> > off REG_NO_CONFLICT generation? Any other ideas?
>
> A pass to reorder insns so that live ranges are shortened and register
> pressure is relieved.
I think you could do this with
On 4/16/07, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose we could add a target macro to let individual ports turn off
> REG_NO_CONFLICT generation? Any other ideas?
A pass to reorder insns so that live ranges are shortened and register
pressure is relieved.
I think Daniel Berlin had
Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be nice to eliminate REG_NO_CONFLICT altogether, but a quick
> experiment with the i386 port showed that this idea is a non-starter
> for now (i386 still has insns operating on DImode, hence in some
> functions not all DImode registers get lower
I suppose we could add a target macro to let individual ports turn off
REG_NO_CONFLICT generation? Any other ideas?
A pass to reorder insns so that live ranges are shortened and register
pressure is relieved.
Could be something like
for each bb
for each insn
for each active insn
