2011/2/28 Georg-Johann Lay :
> Denis Chertykov schrieb:
>>
>> 2011/2/26 Georg-Johann Lay :
>>
>>> Ok, this is the patch I meant:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=86842
>>>
>>> it allows just Pmode in r29:r28 because of some spill failures in PR15417
>>> and PR12017.
>>
>> I
Denis Chertykov schrieb:
2011/2/26 Georg-Johann Lay :
Ok, this is the patch I meant:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=86842
it allows just Pmode in r29:r28 because of some spill failures in PR15417
and PR12017.
It was a stupid workaround.
I think that the problem exists any
2011/2/26 Georg-Johann Lay :
> Georg-Johann Lay schrieb:
>>
>> Denis Chertykov schrieb:
>>
>>> 2011/2/26 Georg Johann Lay
>>>
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
>> What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according
>> to
>> word_mode which is QImode for avr?
>
>
Georg-Johann Lay schrieb:
Denis Chertykov schrieb:
2011/2/26 Georg Johann Lay
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it
according to
word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
So the same should be true for QI-sub
On 02/24/2011 06:04 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Funny. As far back as I remember we consistently said that bits of the
same word, but outside the subreg are left with undefined values after
storing into the subreg, except if wrapped with a strict_low_part. In
fact that's the whole point of strict_l
Georg-Johann Lay schrieb:
Denis Chertykov schrieb:
2011/2/26 Georg Johann Lay
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it
according to
word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
So the same should be true for QI-sub
Denis Chertykov schrieb:
2011/2/26 Georg Johann Lay
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
UNITS_
2011/2/26 Georg Johann Lay
>
> Eric Botcazou schrieb:
>>>
>>> What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
>>> word_mode which is QImode for avr?
>>
>> The latter, it is machine-dependent.
>>
>>
>>> So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
>>> UNITS_P
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
UNITS_PER_WORT = 1. Right?
Right.
Thanks for that definite c
> What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
> word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
> So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
> UNITS_PER_WORT = 1. Right?
Right.
--
Eric Botcazou
Paul Koning schrieb:
On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Maybe the misunderstanding occurs when the mode of the subreg is
less than word_size? It would certainly make sense that a
subreg write of less than word_size leaves the bits undefined.
ie, if word_size is SImode and we
On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Maybe the misunderstanding occurs when the mode of the subreg is less
>> than word_size? It would certainly make sense that a subreg write of
>> less than word_size leaves the bits undefined.
>>
>> ie, if word_size is SImode and we had a wri
> Maybe the misunderstanding occurs when the mode of the subreg is less
> than word_size? It would certainly make sense that a subreg write of
> less than word_size leaves the bits undefined.
>
> ie, if word_size is SImode and we had a write to
>
> (subreg:HI (reg:SI) 0)
>
> Then the upper bits ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/24/11 10:04, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Funny. As far back as I remember we consistently said that bits of the
> same word, but outside the subreg are left with undefined values after
> storing into the subreg, except if wrapped with a strict_lo
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Target avr suffers from similar problems in 4.3, 4.4 and 4.6 which are
> > all reported against avr backend, not against middleend/rtl optimizers.
> insn 33 and 34 are fine. 33 sets the high part of the HImode register
> to the result of the call to f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/24/11 07:05, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hi, I am trying to track down/fix PR target/45291. The problem is that
> pass .subreg1 generates invalid subregs.
>
> According to internals "10.8 Registers and Memory, Normal Subregs"
> a normal (non-parad
Hi, I am trying to track down/fix PR target/45291. The problem is that
pass .subreg1 generates invalid subregs.
According to internals "10.8 Registers and Memory, Normal Subregs"
a normal (non-paradoxical) subreg as Lvalue sets the specifyed subreg
and leaves the remaining part of the target word
17 matches
Mail list logo
