On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> OK, let's start again from scratch. This patch fixes PR61098, a
> problem caused by trying to do arithmetic on the count register. The
> fix is to provide a new pseudo in rs6000_emit_set_long_const so
> arithmetic will be done in a gpr.
>
> A
OK, let's start again from scratch. This patch fixes PR61098, a
problem caused by trying to do arithmetic on the count register. The
fix is to provide a new pseudo in rs6000_emit_set_long_const so
arithmetic will be done in a gpr.
Additionally, the patch fixes a number of other bugs and cleanup
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> I seem to remember problems in the past with late creation of TOC
>> entries for constants causing problems, so it was easier to fall back
>> to materializing all integer constants inline. I don't remember the
>> PRs, but I think there were is
Hi David,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:46:20PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Danny may have re-organized the code, but I thought that it originally
> came from Tom Rixx, if not earlier.
OK, I'm not trying to apportion blame. My name is on plenty of dodgy
code in the rs6000 backend too. :)
> I se
Alan,
Danny may have re-organized the code, but I thought that it originally
came from Tom Rixx, if not earlier.
I seem to remember problems in the past with late creation of TOC
entries for constants causing problems, so it was easier to fall back
to materializing all integer constants inline. I
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:24:34PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>
> >> Please do not remove all of the comments from the two functions. The
> >> comments should provide some documentation about the different
> >> purposes of the two functions o
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:23:16AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:24:34PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > rs6000_emit_set_const ... always returns a non-zero result ...
> >
> > Can you help clarify the removal of the
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:24:34PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > rs6000_emit_set_const ... always returns a non-zero result ...
>
> Can you help clarify the removal of the code that tests if the
> splitter failed?
See above.
--
Alan Modra
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> Please do not remove all of the comments from the two functions. The
>> comments should provide some documentation about the different
>> purposes of the two functions other than setting DEST to a CONST.
>
> I believe my updated comment covers
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:48:35AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> The history is 32 bit HWI.
Right.
> The ChangeLog does not mention the changes to rs6000.md nor rs6000-protos.h.
Oops, added.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (movsi_internal1_single+1): Update
call to rs6000_emit_set_co
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On powerpc64, to set a large loop count we have code like the
> following after split1:
>
> (insn 67 14 68 4 (set (reg:DI 160)
> (const_int 99942400 [0x5f5])) /home/amodra/unaligned_load.c:14 -1
> (nil))
> (insn 68 67 42 4 (set (
On powerpc64, to set a large loop count we have code like the
following after split1:
(insn 67 14 68 4 (set (reg:DI 160)
(const_int 99942400 [0x5f5])) /home/amodra/unaligned_load.c:14 -1
(nil))
(insn 68 67 42 4 (set (reg:DI 160)
(ior:DI (reg:DI 160)
(const_int
12 matches
Mail list logo