On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 22:17 +0800, Carrot Wei wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 12:34 +0800, Carrot Wei wrote:
> >> Hi Richard
> >>
> >> Thank you for the detailed explanation. It sounds like an inherent
> >> difficulty of rtl passes.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 12:34 +0800, Carrot Wei wrote:
>> Hi Richard
>>
>> Thank you for the detailed explanation. It sounds like an inherent
>> difficulty of rtl passes. Then the only opportunity is ldrb/strb
>> instructions because they
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 12:34 +0800, Carrot Wei wrote:
> Hi Richard
>
> Thank you for the detailed explanation. It sounds like an inherent
> difficulty of rtl passes. Then the only opportunity is ldrb/strb
> instructions because they never affect cc registers.
There are also some comparison operat
Hi Richard
Thank you for the detailed explanation. It sounds like an inherent
difficulty of rtl passes. Then the only opportunity is ldrb/strb
instructions because they never affect cc registers.
thanks
Carrot
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 21
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 21:19 +0800, Carrot Wei wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
> > On 08/04/11 10:57, Carrot Wei wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> This is the second part of the fixing for
> >>
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47855
> >>
> >> This
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 08/04/11 10:57, Carrot Wei wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> This is the second part of the fixing for
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47855
>>
>> This patch contains the length computation for insn patterns
>> "*arm_movqi_insn
On 08/04/11 10:57, Carrot Wei wrote:
Hi
This is the second part of the fixing for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47855
This patch contains the length computation for insn patterns "*arm_movqi_insn"
and "*arm_addsi3". Since the alternatives and encodings are much more complex,
the
On 8 April 2011 09:52, Carrot Wei wrote:
> Sorry, which pattern in thumb2.md?
Sorry, I meant to say push_multi in arm.md . Not enough coffee yet this morning.
cheers
Ramana
>
> thanks
> Carrot
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On 08/04/11 08:36, Carrot Wei wro
Sorry, which pattern in thumb2.md?
thanks
Carrot
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 08/04/11 08:36, Carrot Wei wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> This patch moves the length computation of push_multi into a C
>> function to avoid the usage of GNU extension.
>
> Please put the co
On 08/04/11 08:36, Carrot Wei wrote:
Hi
This patch moves the length computation of push_multi into a C
function to avoid the usage of GNU extension.
Please put the comment regarding the calculation of the length attribute
along with the pattern in thumb2.md as well.
Tested on qemu without
Hi
This patch moves the length computation of push_multi into a C
function to avoid the usage of GNU extension.
Tested on qemu without regression. OK to install?
thanks
Carrot
ChangeLog:
2011-04-08 Wei Guozhi
PR target/47855
* config/arm/arm-protos.h (arm_attr_length_push_mu
On 07/04/11 12:08, Carrot Wei wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
Hi Carrot,
Sorry if this has already been reported, but the patch breaks bootstrap
of arm-linux-gnueabi (or cross builds with --enable-werror). The problem
is that this...
uses a statement expressi
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Hi Carrot,
>
> Sorry if this has already been reported, but the patch breaks bootstrap
> of arm-linux-gnueabi (or cross builds with --enable-werror). The problem
> is that this...
>
> uses a statement expression -- i.e. ({ code; result; }
Hi Carrot,
Sorry if this has already been reported, but the patch breaks bootstrap
of arm-linux-gnueabi (or cross builds with --enable-werror). The problem
is that this...
Carrot Wei writes:
> @@ -10256,7 +10281,29 @@
>
> return \"\";
>}"
> - [(set_attr "type" "store4")]
> + [(set_at
Committed as r172017.
thanks
Carrot
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>>
>> The patch was tested on arm qemu without regression, OK for install?
>
> Ok if no regressions.
>
> cheers
> Ramana
>
The patch was tested on arm qemu without regression, OK for install?
Ok if no regressions.
cheers
Ramana
thanks
Carrot
ChangeLog:
2011-04-01 Wei Guozhi
PR target/47855
* config/arm/arm.md (arm_cmpsi_insn): Compute attr "length".
(arm_cond_branch): Likewise.
Hi Ramana
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>>> Hi Carrot,
>>> How about adding an alternative only enabled for T2 that uses the
>>> `l'
>>> constraint and inventing new constraints for some of the constant values
>>> that are valid for 16 bit instructions since
Hi Carrot,
How about adding an alternative only enabled for T2 that uses the `l'
constraint and inventing new constraints for some of the constant values
that are valid for 16 bit instructions since the `I' and `L' constraints
have different meanings depending on whether TARGET_32BIT
Hi Ramana
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi Carrot,
>
>
> How about adding an alternative only enabled for T2 that uses the `l'
> constraint and inventing new constraints for some of the constant values
> that are valid for 16 bit instructions since the `I'
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 12:38 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/3/30 06:35 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > Hi Carrot,
> >
> > On 26/03/11 15:14, Carrot Wei wrote:
> >> Index: arm.md
> >> ===
> >> --- arm.md(revision 171337
On 2011/3/30 06:35 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Carrot,
>
> On 26/03/11 15:14, Carrot Wei wrote:
>> Index: arm.md
>> ===
>> --- arm.md(revision 171337)
>> +++ arm.md(working copy)
>> @@ -7115,7 +7115,18 @@
>> "@
>>
Hi Carrot,
On 26/03/11 15:14, Carrot Wei wrote:
Index: arm.md
===
--- arm.md (revision 171337)
+++ arm.md (working copy)
@@ -7115,7 +7115,18 @@
"@
cmp%?\\t%0, %1
cmn%?\\t%0, #%n1"
- [(set_attr "conds" "set")
22 matches
Mail list logo