On 06/21/16 00:06, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 10:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
>>> Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than
>>> make it
On 06/09/2016 10:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than make it
unused. That is a sure path to ICEs.
Though,
On 06/09/16 18:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
>> Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than make it
>> unused. That is a sure path to ICEs.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Yes, I'm all in favor in disabling X constraint for inline asm.
> Especially if people actually try to print it as well, rather than make it
> unused. That is a sure path to ICEs.
Though, on the other side, even our documentation
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:30:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 01:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>The last one would miss floating point registers (no 2 platforms use the
> >>same letter for those, hence my quest for
On 06/06/2016 01:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
The last one would miss floating point registers (no 2 platforms use the
same letter for those, hence my quest for something more generic).
The goal of the experiment is described in
On 06/07/2016 11:58 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
AFACT this is not the only place where overly complex RTL trees can
cause an ICE.
That wouldn't surprise me at all -- but the design of RTL is such that
it can be arbitrarily complex. Essentially, routines can not make
assumptions about the
On 06/06/16 20:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:04:04PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
> I
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> The last one would miss floating point registers (no 2 platforms use the
> same letter for those, hence my quest for something more generic).
>
> The goal of the experiment is described in PR59159 (for which "+X" is
> unlikely to be
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:04:04PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
I only can say that
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 12:04:04PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>>As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
> >>>I only can say that the code looks questionable to
On 06/06/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
I only can say that the code looks questionable to me.
I think the question on the recog part is a matter of how we
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:54:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >As for recog.c, I can not approve this as I am not a maintainer of it.
> >I only can say that the code looks questionable to me.
> I think the question on the recog part is a matter of how we choose to
> interpret what the "X" constraint
On 06/06/2016 11:04 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 06/06/2016 09:32 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Ping...
see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02010.html
Thank you for working on the PR and sorry for the delay with LRA part of
review.
Change in lra-constraints.c is ok for me with
On 06/06/2016 09:32 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Ping...
see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02010.html
Thank you for working on the PR and sorry for the delay with LRA part of
review.
Change in lra-constraints.c is ok for me with the following change.
Instead of just
-
Ping...
see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02010.html
Thanks
Bernd.
On 05/25/16 14:58, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This restricts the X constraint in asm statements, which
> can be easily folded by combine in something completely
> invalid.
>
> It is necessary to allow
16 matches
Mail list logo
