>> * rtl.h (set_for_reg_notes): Declare.
>> * emit-rtl.c (set_for_reg_notes): New function.
>> (set_unique_reg_note): Use it.
>> * optabs.c (add_equal_note): Likewise.
> This is fine.
checked-in as revision 210998.
Thanks Jeff :-)
Olivier
On 05/26/14 06:28, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Hello,
This is a follow up on a thread started long ago there:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00967.html
With a first followup and a patch proposal there:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00731.html
Then a refinement s
Hello,
This is a follow up on a thread started long ago there:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00967.html
With a first followup and a patch proposal there:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00731.html
Then a refinement suggested by Richard Sandiford here:
http://
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Olivier Hainque writes:
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> Re $subject, at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01515.html
>>
>> You suggested:
Would be nice to use a single function that knows about the extra
contraints here. Maybe something like the attached?
On May 4, 2012, at 16:16 , Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Sorry, was going to test this earlier, but got distracted by
> lower-subreg stuff.
No problem at all. I just happened to have had an opportunity to
test as part of a series of miscellaneous other submissions.
> I need to fix the subreg ha
Olivier Hainque writes:
> Hello Richard,
>
> Re $subject, at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01515.html
>
> You suggested:
>>> Would be nice to use a single function that knows about the extra
>>> contraints here. Maybe something like the attached?
>
> << 2012-04-24 ...
>
> *
Hello Richard,
Re $subject, at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01515.html
You suggested:
>> Would be nice to use a single function that knows about the extra
>> contraints here. Maybe something like the attached?
<< 2012-04-24 ...
* rtl.h (set_for_reg_notes): Declare.
Hello Richard,
On Apr 25, 2012, at 00:06 , Richard Sandiford wrote:
> STRICT_LOW_PART is OK too.
Ah, right.
> Would be nice to use a single function that knows about the extra
> contraints here. Maybe something like the attached?
>
> I'm deliberately requiring the SET to the first rtx in the
Olivier Hainque writes:
> *** /tmp/rkQ7Ep_emit-rtl.c2012-04-12 11:19:51.830104512 +0200
> --- gcc/emit-rtl.c2012-04-11 22:39:11.323103686 +0200
> *** set_unique_reg_note (rtx insn, enum reg_
> *** 4955,4960
> --- 4955,4975
> if (GET_CODE (datum) == ASM_OPERAND
Clarifying:
On Apr 12, 2012, at 11:54 , Olivier Hainque wrote:
> At the time we had fixed specific locations
> where this was happening via explicit calls to set_unique_reg_note.
We had fixed the problems observable at the time by preventing
calls to set_unique_reg_notes when they would lead t
Hello,
This is a followup on a suggestion made along the thread at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00967.html
where we were observing the middle-end setting invalid REG_EQUIV
notes on set(mem) insns. At the time we had fixed specific locations
where this was happening via explicit
11 matches
Mail list logo
