On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:19:59PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> > Or, fix up the insane arm costs for ASM_OPERANDS:
> > case ASM_OPERANDS:
> > /* Just a guess. Cost one insn per input. */
> > *cost = COSTS_N_INSNS (ASM_OPERANDS_INPUT_LENGTH (x));
> > return true;
> > I don
On 11 April 2014 00:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:41:12AM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Ping?
>>
>> Bootstrap and no make check regression on X86-64.
>>
>> Bootstrap on ARM. In ARM regression test, some new PASS and FAIL of
>> debug info check for gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1
On 04/10/2014 09:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2014-04-10 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR rtl-optimization/60663
> * cse.c (cse_insn): Set src_volatile on ASM_OPERANDS in
> PARALLEL.
>
> * gcc.target/arm/pr60663.c: New test.
Ok if it passes.
But you're right that ARM backend nee
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:41:12AM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Ping?
>
> Bootstrap and no make check regression on X86-64.
>
> Bootstrap on ARM. In ARM regression test, some new PASS and FAIL of
> debug info check for gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c and
> gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-2.c since register a
Ping?
Bootstrap and no make check regression on X86-64.
Bootstrap on ARM. In ARM regression test, some new PASS and FAIL of
debug info check for gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c and
gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-2.c since register allocation result is
different with the patch. There is no real new FAIL due to
On 26 March 2014 15:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:30:44PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Agree. CSE should never modify asm insns to drop some of the outputs.
>
> So the right fix is top prevent this from happening, not papering over about
> it.
>>
>> But in this case, CSE
On 26 March 2014 15:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:30:44PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Agree. CSE should never modify asm insns to drop some of the outputs.
>
> So the right fix is top prevent this from happening, not papering over about
> it.
>>
>> But in this case, CSE
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:30:44PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Agree. CSE should never modify asm insns to drop some of the outputs.
So the right fix is top prevent this from happening, not papering over about
it.
>
> But in this case, CSE does not drop any of the outputs. It just takes
> the
On 26 March 2014 15:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:16:16PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> The patch checks the number of the expected operands in
>> ASM_OPERANDS_TEMPLATE with the same logic as it in output_asm_insn to
>> make sure the ASM_OPERANDS are legal.
>>
>> Bootstra
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:16:16PM +0800, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> The patch checks the number of the expected operands in
> ASM_OPERANDS_TEMPLATE with the same logic as it in output_asm_insn to
> make sure the ASM_OPERANDS are legal.
>
> Bootstrap and no make check regression on X86-64 and ARM chr
Hi,
The patch checks the number of the expected operands in
ASM_OPERANDS_TEMPLATE with the same logic as it in output_asm_insn to
make sure the ASM_OPERANDS are legal.
Bootstrap and no make check regression on X86-64 and ARM chromebook.
OK for trunk?
Thanks!
-Zhenqiang
ChangeLog:
2014-03-26 Z
11 matches
Mail list logo
