Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 12:01 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
In any case IRA can not use UREC because UREC is needed before IRA
calculates reg class info and the reg class info is needed for
calculation of UREC. If you manage to use LIVE inst
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 09:32 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> The problem comes where you have a store that uses 2 or more hard regs
> but one or more of those hardregs is unused.
>
> In a forwards scan, ALL of the set regs will interfere with anything
> live until the last set reg goes dead. In a b
Seongbae Park (???, ???) wrote:
> On 8/17/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>
>> we should talk. I am avail today. i am leaving on vacation tomorrow
>> for a week.
>>
>
> Please send me the patch before you leave (and please leave valinor
> turned on) - I'll give a look
On 8/17/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> we should talk. I am avail today. i am leaving on vacation tomorrow
> for a week.
Please send me the patch before you leave (and please leave valinor
turned on) - I'll give a look while you're gone.
--
#pragma ident "Seongbae Park, com
Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 12:01 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>
>>> In any case IRA can not use UREC because UREC is needed before IRA
>>> calculates reg class info and the reg class info is needed for
>>> calculation of UREC. If you manage to use LIVE instead of UREC, it
>
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 12:01 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> > In any case IRA can not use UREC because UREC is needed before IRA
> > calculates reg class info and the reg class info is needed for
> > calculation of UREC. If you manage to use LIVE instead of UREC, it
> > would permit to use LIVE al
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>>
>>>
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local_alloc is
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local_alloc is preassigning regs for
pseudos that would map into more than 1
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
>> to make reload/global happy.
>>
>> the case comes about because of way local_alloc is preassigning regs for
>> pseudos that would map into more than 1 hardreg.
>>
>> pse
Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are a lot of ways to handle this problem:
> 1) We could do a pass that breaks multiword sets into individual regs if
> some of those regs are dead. I guess the downside of this is that such
> insns may not match some patterns anymore.
>
> 2) We
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local_alloc is preassigning regs for
pseudos that would map into more than 1 hardreg.
pseudo's are as wide as they need to be. When loc
12 matches
Mail list logo
