On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:12:25AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:09:54PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > Jakub, was your suggestion to use get_last_insn_anywhere() based on
>> > not wanting to expose details that should
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 11:31:53AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:59:01PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:12:25AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:09:54PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > > Jakub, was your suggestion to use
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:59:01PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:12:25AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:09:54PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Jakub, was your suggestion to use get_last_insn_anywhere() based on
> > > not wanting to expose details
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:12:25AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:09:54PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > Jakub, was your suggestion to use get_last_insn_anywhere() based on
> > not wanting to expose details that should be internal to
> > emit-rtl.[ch]?
>
> Yes. But if it d
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:09:54PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> Jakub, was your suggestion to use get_last_insn_anywhere() based on
> not wanting to expose details that should be internal to
> emit-rtl.[ch]?
Yes. But if it doesn't work for what you want, either add a new accessor or
use it directly
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 09:06:02PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Testing only crtl->emit.sequence_stack->last
> does not seem to be sufficient. It seems like it really needs to test
> for more of the CALL sequence.
Ugh. You're right, we do need to test more of the call sequence.
Shame on me, I
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:14:49AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > PR target/64876
>> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (chain_already_loaded): New function.
>> > (rs6000_ca
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:14:49AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > PR target/64876
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (chain_already_loaded): New function.
> > (rs6000_call_aix): Use it.
>
> Okay with Jakub's suggested change.
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:08:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:27:35AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > @@ -33002,7 +33092,9 @@ rs6000_call_aix (rtx value, rtx func_desc, rtx fla
> > originally direct, the 3rd word has not been written since no
> > trampol
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes a large number of Go testsuite failures on powerpc64 ELFv1,
> caused by loading r11 from a function descriptor and thus trashing the
> value set up from CALL_EXPR_STATIC_CHAIN. So don't load r11 if it
> already contains a useful value
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:27:35AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> +static bool
> +chain_already_loaded (rtx_insn *last)
> +{
> + if (last != NULL)
> +{
> + rtx patt = PATTERN (last);
> +
> + if (GET_CODE (patt) == SET)
> + {
> + rtx lhs = XEXP (patt, 0);
> +
> + if (REG_P
This fixes a large number of Go testsuite failures on powerpc64 ELFv1,
caused by loading r11 from a function descriptor and thus trashing the
value set up from CALL_EXPR_STATIC_CHAIN. So don't load r11 if it
already contains a useful value. Whether r11 has been set is found
directly by examining
12 matches
Mail list logo
