--- Comment #20 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2009-08-23 18:19 ---
Fixed in 4.5.0.
--
schwab at linux-m68k dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-10 15:34
---
Subject: Bug 37053
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Aug 10 15:34:09 2009
New Revision: 150626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=150626
Log:
PR target/37053
* reload1.c
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 12:29
---
GCC 4.3.4 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 13:14
---
There are several (4, I think) patches posted in gcc-patches@ for this bug. A
reload/recog maintainer is needed to choose the most appropriate one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37053
--- Comment #16 from bergner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 13:35
---
There have been many patches posted, but most have caused serious performance
degradations on power. However, the two latest patches to reload do not. They
are:
1)
--- Comment #17 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 13:43
---
I'll try the above two patches and will report in a couple of days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37053
--- Comment #13 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 16:02
---
Created an attachment (id=18061)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18061action=view)
Proposed patch
Here is a patch moving precedence handling of pointers to powerpc backend.
--
--- Comment #8 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 11:39
---
(In reply to comment #6)
But that was the meat of fixing PR28690. :-(
The insn should satisfy the constraints of alternative 4.
Well, not really. For the insn to match alternative 4 the pattern should be
--- Comment #9 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-23 12:04 ---
But % makes it commutative, no? So operand 2 matches operand 0, and operand 1
matches mSrIKLT.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37053
--- Comment #10 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 12:26
---
(In reply to comment #9)
But % makes it commutative, no?
Yes, but that only means that the operands can be swapped *if*
swap_commutative_operands_p() returns true. Due to the funny precedence that
does not
--- Comment #11 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-06-23 13:09 ---
Yes, but that only means that the operands can be swapped *if*
swap_commutative_operands_p() returns true. Due to the funny precedence that
does not happen.
Matching procedures do not take commutativeness into
--- Comment #12 from mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-23 17:21
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Still, I don't think a target hook is the solution. Even if it adds hack over
hack, having the funny precedence rules only before reload could be a
solution.
For the record, I
12 matches
Mail list logo
