On Wed, 26 Nov 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:20:13AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Actually, thinking about it more, at least according to
commutative_operand_precedence the canonical order is
what we used to return (i.e. (something - _G_O_T_) + (symbol_ref)
or
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:20:13AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Actually, thinking about it more, at least according to
commutative_operand_precedence the canonical order is
what we used to return (i.e. (something - _G_O_T_) + (symbol_ref)
or
(something - _G_O_T_) + (const (symbol_ref +-
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
The fallback delegitimization I've added as last option mainly for
debug info purposes, when we don't know if the base is a PIC register
or say a PIC
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:13:10AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
The fallback delegitimization I've added as last option mainly for
debug info
Hi!
The fallback delegitimization I've added as last option mainly for
debug info purposes, when we don't know if the base is a PIC register
or say a PIC register plus some addend, unfortunately in some tests
broke find_base_term, which for PLUS looks only at the first operand
and recursion on it
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
The fallback delegitimization I've added as last option mainly for
debug info purposes, when we don't know if the base is a PIC register
or say a PIC register plus some addend, unfortunately in some tests
broke
