Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:58:51AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > An #ifdef is a way of making a change that is not finished yet not hurt
>> > the other targets. It still hurts generic development, which indirectly
>> > hurts all t
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:58:51AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > An #ifdef is a way of making a change that is not finished yet not hurt
> > the other targets. It still hurts generic development, which indirectly
> > hurts all targets.
>
> Seems like this might
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 07:13:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > Most importantly, what makes you think this is a problem for aarch64
>> > only? If it actually is, you can fix it in the aarch64 config! Either
>> > with or
Hi!
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 07:13:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > Most importantly, what makes you think this is a problem for aarch64
> > only? If it actually is, you can fix it in the aarch64 config! Either
> > with or without new hooks, whatever works be
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:34:59PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:08:00PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:47:06PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> >>
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:34:59PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> > Could we have a target hook to canonicalize memory addresses for combiner,
>> > like we have that targetm.canonicalize_comparison ?
>>
>> I don't think a hook makes sense
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:34:59PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > Could we have a target hook to canonicalize memory addresses for combiner,
> > like we have that targetm.canonicalize_comparison ?
>
> I don't think a hook makes sense as a long-term design decision.
>
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 05:18:50PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:08:00PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> That still feels like it could be risky in stage4, affecting various other
> FEs which would be expecting ANDs in their patterns instead of *_EXTE
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:08:00PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:47:06PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> How about the patch below?
>> >
>> > What about it? What would make it any bet
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 03:08:00PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:47:06PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> How about the patch below?
> >
> > What about it? What would make it any better than the previous?
>
> It d
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:47:06PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> How about the patch below?
>
> What about it? What would make it any better than the previous?
It does what Jeff suggested in the quoted message: work within the existing
extract/make_compound_oper
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 12:47:06PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> How about the patch below?
What about it? What would make it any better than the previous?
Oh, and please do not send new patches in old threads :-(
Segher
12 matches
Mail list logo