On 08/04/16 22:27, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/21/2016 10:29 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
But I think we have a use case where "X" means really more possible
registers (i.e. includes ss2, mmx etc.) than "g" (only general
registers). Otherwise, in the test cases of pr59155 we would not
On 07/21/2016 10:29 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
But I think we have a use case where "X" means really more possible
registers (i.e. includes ss2, mmx etc.) than "g" (only general
registers). Otherwise, in the test cases of pr59155 we would not
have any benefit for using "+X" instead of "+g" or "+r
On 07/20/16 22:04, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/22/2016 02:48 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 06/22/16 21:51, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 06/19/2016 07:25 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
ping...
As this discussion did not make any progress, I just attached
the latest version of my
On 06/22/2016 02:48 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 06/22/16 21:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/19/2016 07:25 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
ping...
As this discussion did not make any progress, I just attached
the latest version of my patch with the the changes that
Vladimir proposed.
Boot-strapped a
On 06/22/16 21:51, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/19/2016 07:25 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> ping...
>>
>> As this discussion did not make any progress, I just attached
>> the latest version of my patch with the the changes that
>> Vladimir proposed.
>>
>> Boot-strapped and reg-tested again on x
On 06/19/2016 07:25 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
ping...
As this discussion did not make any progress, I just attached
the latest version of my patch with the the changes that
Vladimir proposed.
Boot-strapped and reg-tested again on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Is it OK for the trunk?
Well, I don't thin
On 06/21/16 00:06, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 10:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
>>> Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than
>>> make it
On 06/09/2016 10:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than make it
unused. That is a sure path to ICEs.
Though, o
Hi,
ping...
As this discussion did not make any progress, I just attached
the latest version of my patch with the the changes that
Vladimir proposed.
Boot-strapped and reg-tested again on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Is it OK for the trunk?
Thanks
Bernd.
On 06/10/16 16:13, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 06
On 06/09/16 18:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
>> Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than make it
>> unused. That is a sure path to ICEs.
>
> Thou
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
> Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than make it
> unused. That is a sure path to ICEs.
Though, on the other side, even our documentation me
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:30:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 01:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>The last one would miss floating point registers (no 2 platforms use the
> >>same letter for those, hence my quest for somethi
On 06/06/2016 01:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
The last one would miss floating point registers (no 2 platforms use the
same letter for those, hence my quest for something more generic).
The goal of the experiment is described in PR5915
On 06/07/2016 11:58 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
AFACT this is not the only place where overly complex RTL trees can
cause an ICE.
That wouldn't surprise me at all -- but the design of RTL is such that
it can be arbitrarily complex. Essentially, routines can not make
assumptions about the comple
On 06/06/16 20:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:04:04PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
> I only
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> The last one would miss floating point registers (no 2 platforms use the
> same letter for those, hence my quest for something more generic).
>
> The goal of the experiment is described in PR59159 (for which "+X" is
> unlikely to be th
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:04:04PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
I only can say that
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:04:04PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>>As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
> >>>I only can say that the code looks questionable to m
On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
I only can say that the code looks questionable to me.
I think the question on the recog part is a matter of how we choos
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
> >I only can say that the code looks questionable to me.
> I think the question on the recog part is a matter of how we choose to
> interpret what the "X" constraint
On 06/06/2016 11:04 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 06/06/2016 09:32 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Ping...
see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02010.html
Thank you for working on the PR and sorry for the delay with LRA part of
review.
Change in lra-constraints.c is ok for me with t
On 06/06/2016 09:32 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Ping...
see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02010.html
Thank you for working on the PR and sorry for the delay with LRA part of
review.
Change in lra-constraints.c is ok for me with the following change.
Instead of just
-
Ping...
see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02010.html
Thanks
Bernd.
On 05/25/16 14:58, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This restricts the X constraint in asm statements, which
> can be easily folded by combine in something completely
> invalid.
>
> It is necessary to allow scratc
Hi!
This restricts the X constraint in asm statements, which
can be easily folded by combine in something completely
invalid.
It is necessary to allow scratch here, because on i386
the md_asm_adjust hook inserts them.
The second test case fails because lra does not
allow all register for anythin
24 matches
Mail list logo
