https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> > BTW, the problem is also there when using LRA.
>
> Is this still the case?
Just checked it on trunk. Yes, nothing has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> BTW, the problem is also there when using LRA.
Is this still the case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another minimal test case:
int var;
int test (void)
{
return var;
}
mov.l r14,@-r15
mov r15,r14
mov.l .L3,r1
mov.l @r1,r1
lds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, the problem is also there when using LRA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A test case for this problem is gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order1.C,
which is compiled without optimizations and contains the following sequence:
stc gbr,r1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 09:45:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
makes the unwanted subreg propagation go away, but ends up in another reload
trouble:
sh_tmp.cpp:92:1: error: unable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-13 08:44:43
UTC ---
I've tested this:
Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c
===
--- gcc/config/sh/sh.c(revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-13 22:25:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I've tested this:
Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
10:59:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I don't know the history about it. I guess that the original
intention would be to use FP registers as fast memories for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31 11:54:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't know the history about it. I guess that the original
intention would be to use FP registers as fast memories for
integers,
11 matches
Mail list logo
