On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 10:39:23AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> There are some target hooks in combine that might help here.
> targetm.cannot_copy_insn_p and targetm.legitimate_combined_insn. The
> former is used more widely than just combine, so you might need to be
> careful that
On 01/10/2019 20:43, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/20/19 7:18 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:07:59PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
Introducing the reversed jbb* patterns doesn't seem to help with the
original issue. It crashes building libatomic.
My loose understanding of what is
On 9/21/19 12:27 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 20, 2019, at 9:18 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:07:59PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>>> Introducing the reversed jbb* patterns doesn't seem to help with the
>>> original issue. It crashes building libatomic.
>>
>>
On 9/20/19 7:18 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:07:59PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> Introducing the reversed jbb* patterns doesn't seem to help with the
>> original issue. It crashes building libatomic.
>
> My loose understanding of what is going on:
> - GCC emits this
> On Sep 20, 2019, at 9:18 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:07:59PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> Introducing the reversed jbb* patterns doesn't seem to help with the
>> original issue. It crashes building libatomic.
>
> My loose understanding of what is going on:
> -
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:07:59PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> Introducing the reversed jbb* patterns doesn't seem to help with the
> original issue. It crashes building libatomic.
My loose understanding of what is going on:
- GCC emits this atomic in expand.
- When cleaning up, it looks for
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 03:45:46PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Conditional branching patterns must support the label_ref and pc
> operands in either position. Everything else I've seen on this thread
> is just working around that broken aspect of the builtins.md file.
>
>
> (define_insn "jbbssiqi"
On 9/20/19 3:04 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:15:32AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> Removed from the diff. Unfortunately this introduces an ICE during the
>> build of GCC...
>
> I took another look at the VAX atomic pattern issue.
> (http://gnats.netbsd.org/53039)
> It is
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:15:32AM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> Removed from the diff. Unfortunately this introduces an ICE during the
> build of GCC...
I took another look at the VAX atomic pattern issue.
(http://gnats.netbsd.org/53039)
It is a compiler crash to do with the added atomic
