Re: [patch,reload] PR116326: Add #define IN_RELOAD1_CC

2024-09-08 Thread Richard Biener
On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 8:22 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2024, 11:07 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> >> Am 07.09.24 um 19:51 schrieb H.J. Lu: >> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 10:49 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> >> Am 07.09.24 um 18:35 schrieb Jeff Law: >> >>> On 9/6/24 3:40 AM, Georg-Johann L

Re: [patch,reload] PR116326: Add #define IN_RELOAD1_CC

2024-09-07 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Sep 7, 2024, 11:07 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Am 07.09.24 um 19:51 schrieb H.J. Lu: > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 10:49 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >> Am 07.09.24 um 18:35 schrieb Jeff Law: > >>> On 9/6/24 3:40 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > The reason for PR116326 is that LRA and re

Re: [patch,reload] PR116326: Add #define IN_RELOAD1_CC

2024-09-07 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Am 07.09.24 um 19:51 schrieb H.J. Lu: On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 10:49 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Am 07.09.24 um 18:35 schrieb Jeff Law: On 9/6/24 3:40 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: The reason for PR116326 is that LRA and reload require different ELIMINABLE_REGS for a multi-register frame pointer.

Re: [patch,reload] PR116326: Add #define IN_RELOAD1_CC

2024-09-07 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 10:49 AM Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > Am 07.09.24 um 18:35 schrieb Jeff Law: > > On 9/6/24 3:40 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >> The reason for PR116326 is that LRA and reload require different > >> ELIMINABLE_REGS for a multi-register frame pointer. As ELIMINABLE_REGS > >>

Re: [patch,reload] PR116326: Add #define IN_RELOAD1_CC

2024-09-07 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Am 07.09.24 um 18:35 schrieb Jeff Law: On 9/6/24 3:40 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: The reason for PR116326 is that LRA and reload require different ELIMINABLE_REGS for a multi-register frame pointer.  As ELIMINABLE_REGS is used to initialize static const objects, it is not possible to make ELIMIN

Re: [patch,reload] PR116326: Add #define IN_RELOAD1_CC

2024-09-07 Thread Jeff Law
On 9/6/24 3:40 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: The reason for PR116326 is that LRA and reload require different ELIMINABLE_REGS for a multi-register frame pointer.  As ELIMINABLE_REGS is used to initialize static const objects, it is not possible to make ELIMINABLE_REGS to depend on options or pat

[patch,reload] PR116326: Add #define IN_RELOAD1_CC

2024-09-06 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
The reason for PR116326 is that LRA and reload require different ELIMINABLE_REGS for a multi-register frame pointer. As ELIMINABLE_REGS is used to initialize static const objects, it is not possible to make ELIMINABLE_REGS to depend on options or patch it in some target hook. It was also conclud