Hi Jackson
On 11/07/18 17:48, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
Hi Sudi,
Thanks for the review.
On 07/10/2018 10:56 AM, Sudakshina wrote:
Hi Jackson
- if (!MEM_P (mem_1) || aarch64_mem_pair_operand (mem_1, mode))
+ if (!MEM_P (mem[1]) || aarch64_mem_pair_operand (mem[1], mode))
mem_1 == mem[1]?
Oops, yes... That should be mem[0].
return false;
- /* The mems cannot be volatile. */
...
/* If we have SImode and slow unaligned ldp,
check the alignment to be at least 8 byte. */
if (mode == SImode
&& (aarch64_tune_params.extra_tuning_flags
- & AARCH64_EXTRA_TUNE_SLOW_UNALIGNED_LDPW)
+ & AARCH64_EXTRA_TUNE_SLOW_UNALIGNED_LDPW)
&& !optimize_size
- && MEM_ALIGN (mem_1) < 8 * BITS_PER_UNIT)
+ && MEM_ALIGN (mem[1]) < 8 * BITS_PER_UNIT)
Likewise
Done
...
/* Check if the registers are of same class. */
- if (rclass_1 != rclass_2 || rclass_2 != rclass_3 || rclass_3 !=
rclass_4)
- return false;
+ for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
num_instructions -1 instead of 3 would be more consistent.
Done
+ if (rclass[i] != rclass[i + 1])
+ return false;
It looks good otherwise.
Thanks
Sudi
Re-regtested and boostrapped.
OK for trunk?
Looks good to me but you will need approval from
a maintainer to commit it!
Thanks
Sudi
Thanks,
Jackson
