On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/29/2014 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
if (MEM_READONLY_P (x))
+if (GET_CODE (mem_addr) == AND)
+ return 1;
return 0;
Certainly missing braces here. But with that fixed the patch looks plausible.
On 07/07/2014 02:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/29/2014 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
if (MEM_READONLY_P (x))
+if (GET_CODE (mem_addr) == AND)
+ return 1;
return 0;
Certainly missing braces here.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/07/2014 02:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/29/2014 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
if (MEM_READONLY_P (x))
+if (GET_CODE (mem_addr)
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/07/2014 02:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/29/2014 11:14
On 07/07/2014 07:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ugh. I wasn't aware of that - is this documented anywhere? What
exactly does such address conflict with? Does it inhibit type-based analysis?
Dunno if it's documented anywhere. Such addresses conflict with anything,
unless it can be proven not
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
Early alpha can't store sub-4-byte quantities. Altivec can't store anything
but 16 byte quantities. In order to perform smaller stores, we have to do a
read-modify-write sequence on a larger aligned chunk of memory.
On 07/07/2014 09:35 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
Early alpha can't store sub-4-byte quantities. Altivec can't store anything
but 16 byte quantities. In order to perform smaller stores, we have to do a
read-modify-write
On 06/29/2014 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
if (MEM_READONLY_P (x))
+if (GET_CODE (mem_addr) == AND)
+ return 1;
return 0;
Certainly missing braces here. But with that fixed the patch looks plausible.
I'll look at it closer later today.
r~
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/29/2014 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
if (MEM_READONLY_P (x))
+if (GET_CODE (mem_addr) == AND)
+ return 1;
return 0;
Certainly missing braces here. But with that fixed the patch looks plausible.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/27/2014 10:04 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
This happened due to the way stores to QImode and HImode locations are
implemented on non-BWX targets. The sequence reads full word, does its
magic to the part and stores the
Hello!
The motivation for this patch was exposed miscompilation of gfortran
on alpha that resulted in:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_3.f90:15.20:
print *, ubound(x,dim=3) ! wrong dim
1
Error: Assumed-rank variable x at (1) may only be used as actual argument
The
On 06/27/2014 10:04 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
This happened due to the way stores to QImode and HImode locations are
implemented on non-BWX targets. The sequence reads full word, does its
magic to the part and stores the full word with changed part back to
the memory. However - the scheduler
12 matches
Mail list logo
