On 31 October 2013 00:08, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/30/13 00:09, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
On 30 October 2013 02:47, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/24/13 02:20, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
Hi,
REG_INC note is lost in subreg2 pass when resolve_simple_move, which
might lead to
On 30 October 2013 02:47, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/24/13 02:20, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
Hi,
REG_INC note is lost in subreg2 pass when resolve_simple_move, which
might lead to wrong dependence for ira. e.g. In function
validate_equiv_mem of ira.c, it checks REG_INC note:
On 10/30/13 00:09, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
On 30 October 2013 02:47, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/24/13 02:20, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
Hi,
REG_INC note is lost in subreg2 pass when resolve_simple_move, which
might lead to wrong dependence for ira. e.g. In function
validate_equiv_mem of
On 10/24/13 02:20, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
Hi,
REG_INC note is lost in subreg2 pass when resolve_simple_move, which
might lead to wrong dependence for ira. e.g. In function
validate_equiv_mem of ira.c, it checks REG_INC note:
for (note = REG_NOTES (insn); note; note = XEXP (note, 1))
Hi,
REG_INC note is lost in subreg2 pass when resolve_simple_move, which
might lead to wrong dependence for ira. e.g. In function
validate_equiv_mem of ira.c, it checks REG_INC note:
for (note = REG_NOTES (insn); note; note = XEXP (note, 1))
if ((REG_NOTE_KIND (note) == REG_INC