"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> In our porting, "movm" is implemented as define_expand. Register move and
> memory
> move are implmeneted in different define_insn. Register move pattern has no
> "m" alternative, and thus causes the "asm operand requires impossible reload".
> I should merge these two pa
text to avoid
future confusion.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com]
> Sent: 01 May 2009 15:32
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; bernd.schm...@analog.com; weig...@de.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: Re
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> Actually, they do contain references to pseudo-registers. Only in following
> code (reload function in reload1.c, after the reload_as_needed function
> that emits error message), pseudo registers are replaced with requivalent
> memory operands.
Yes, but the insns generat
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com]
> Sent: 01 May 2009 15:32
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; bernd.schm...@analog.com; weig...@de.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: Reload problem: asm operand requires impossible reload
>
>
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I experienced "asm operand requires impossible reload" error in our private
> porting.
> After digging into the reloading pass, I found something a bit fishy.
>
> The error message is produced in reload_as_needed function (reload1.c)
>
> ...
> /* If this wa
>> I did find something which might be the real problem. Within
>> delete_output_reload there are two calls to count_occurrences. The
>> second one will be called with parameters
>
>...
>
>> Due to this difference, no occurence is found. So the second
>> operand=20 of the (plus:DI ...) is not
Erwin Unruh wrote:
> Sorry, I mislead you. Somehow I did confuse (mem/c:DI (reg:SI 2 2) [0 S8
> A8])
> with (reg:DI 2). Register 2 is used correctly.
> I do not think any reload is inherited in this case.
Ah, right. That did confuse me ;-)
> I did find something which might be the real problem.
>From: Ulrich Weigand
>
>Erwin Unruh wrote:
>
>> I have a problem with delete_output_reload. It sometimes deletes
>> instructions which are needed. Here an analysis of a recent
>case (In a
>> private version of the S390 port). The original S390 shows
>almost the
>> same reloads, but chooses d
Erwin Unruh wrote:
> I have a problem with delete_output_reload. It sometimes deletes
> instructions
> which are needed. Here an analysis of a recent case (In a private
> version of
> the S390 port). The original S390 shows almost the same reloads, but
> chooses
> different registers.
What GCC ve
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 22:37 +0530, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Right : A way to work around this would be to hold to not match this
> instruction until reload has been completed and have a define_split to
> convert this to a cmp , bne when its a memory operand matching . Look at
> rs6000.md or m
Right : A way to work around this would be to hold to not match this
instruction until reload has been completed and have a define_split to
convert this to a cmp , bne when its a memory operand matching . Look at
rs6000.md or mt.md for a sample implementation.
What I am saying is the following.
Rajkishore Barik wrote:
problems with the following instruction in post-reload.c:391 in
"reload_cse_simplify_operands" function stating that the "insn does
not satisfy constraint".
There are lots of different ways that this problem can occur. It is
hard to say much without having a testcase I
The architecture for which I generate code is Intel x86.
On 3/6/06, Rajkishore Barik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to feed the "reload" phase with a different hardware
> register assignment to pseudo registers (using reg_renumber array)
> than the ones produced by local-alloc o
13 matches
Mail list logo
