[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-patches
Subject:    Re: RFC: [PATCH,ARM] Fix 56110
From:       Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman () code-monkey ! de>
Date:       2013-02-28 17:11:18
Message-ID: 20130228171118.GA466 () code-monkey ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Tilman Sauerbeck [2013-02-24 17:00]:
> Richard Earnshaw [2013-02-20 11:00]:
> > On 19/02/13 22:26, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> > >I don't get why relaxing the restrictions for the
> > >andsi3_compare0_scratch pattern results in a mismatch for the
> > >zeroextractsi_compare0_scratch one.
> > >
> > >Any ideas?
> > 
> > Because of the way combine works.  It first tries to find a pattern that
> > doesn't have a clobber expression.  It finds your new pattern and then uses
> > that.  But since that can't handle immediates, reload then comes along and
> > forces the constant into a register.
> > 
> > You need one pattern to deal with all the cases.
> 
> You mean the pattern should include calls to arm_split_constant() to do
> the loading itself, like e.g. the iorsi3 pattern does?
> Why can't we let reload do the load?
> 
> FWIW the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00920.html
> works for my testcases, survives a bootstrap in qemu and passes the
> test suite (I only built/tested the C and C++ frontends though).

Sorry to be a pain, but ... ping?
I don't know how to proceed with this patch.

Thanks.

Regards,
Tilman

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]