-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:58 PM
To: Bin.Cheng
Cc: Bin Cheng; GCC Patches; Richard Earnshaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1
: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:58 PM
To: Bin.Cheng
Cc: Bin Cheng; GCC Patches; Richard Earnshaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Construct
To: 'Richard Biener'; Bin.Cheng
Cc: GCC Patches; Richard Earnshaw
Subject: RE: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:58 PM
To: Bin.Cheng
Cc: Bin Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:08 PM
To: Bin Cheng
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression in IVOPT
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM, bin.cheng bin.ch
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, bin.cheng bin.ch...@arm.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:08 PM
To: Bin Cheng
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Construct canonical scaled address expression
On 24/09/13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about that). But yes, at least reg*scale +
offset
and reg*scale + reg.
I can't conceive of a realistic case where one would want to scale the
base address. Scaling the offset is fine, but never the base. So
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 24/09/13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about that). But yes, at least reg*scale +
offset
and reg*scale + reg.
I can't conceive of a realistic case where one would want to scale the
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, bin.cheng bin.ch...@arm.com wrote:
-Original Message-
Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about that). But yes, at least reg*scale +
offset
and reg*scale + reg.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, bin.cheng bin.ch...@arm.com wrote:
-Original Message-
Or even [reg*scale] (not sure about
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM, bin.cheng bin.ch...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
For now IVOPT constructs scaled address expression in the form of
scaled*index and checks whether backend supports it. The problem is the
address expression is invalid on ARM, causing scaled expression disabled in
IVOPT
On 23/09/13 13:07, Richard Biener wrote:
What's the problem
with arm supporting reg1 * scale? Why shouldn't it being able to handle
the implicit zero offset?
Something like we don't have an instruction that can do that...
Valid addresses are of the general form
address:=
'[' base-reg
Hi,
For now IVOPT constructs scaled address expression in the form of
scaled*index and checks whether backend supports it. The problem is the
address expression is invalid on ARM, causing scaled expression disabled in
IVOPT on ARM. This patch fixes the IVOPT part by constructing rtl address
12 matches
Mail list logo
