Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-10-21 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 10/21/2016 12:46 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: How does this look? Looks good, thanks. Bernd

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-10-21 Thread Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Bernd Schmidt writes: > On 10/18/2016 02:15 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: >> Will do both the changes and re-run the reg tests. Ok for trunk if the >> tests pass for x86_64-pc-linux and avr? >> > Probably but let's see the patch first. How does this look? Bootstrapped and reg tested

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-10-18 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 10/18/2016 02:15 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: Will do both the changes and re-run the reg tests. Ok for trunk if the tests pass for x86_64-pc-linux and avr? Probably but let's see the patch first. Bernd

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-10-18 Thread Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Bernd Schmidt writes: > On 10/13/2016 08:57 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: >> >> 2016-10-13 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj >> >> * reload.c (find_valid_class_1): Allow regclass if atleast one >> regno in class is ok. Compute and use rclass size based on

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-10-18 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 10/13/2016 08:57 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: 2016-10-13 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj * reload.c (find_valid_class_1): Allow regclass if atleast one regno in class is ok. Compute and use rclass size based on actually available

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-10-18 Thread Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Ping! Regards Senthil Senthil Kumar Selvaraj writes: > Bernd Schmidt writes: > >> On 09/16/2016 09:02 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: >>> Does this make sense? I ran a reg test for the avr target with a >>> slightly older version of this patch, it did not show any regressions. >>> If

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-10-13 Thread Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Bernd Schmidt writes: > On 09/16/2016 09:02 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: >> Does this make sense? I ran a reg test for the avr target with a >> slightly older version of this patch, it did not show any regressions. >> If this is the right fix, I'll make sure to run reg tests on x86_64

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-09-26 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 09/16/2016 09:02 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: Does this make sense? I ran a reg test for the avr target with a slightly older version of this patch, it did not show any regressions. If this is the right fix, I'll make sure to run reg tests on x86_64 after backporting to a gcc

Re: [Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-09-26 Thread Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Ping! Regards Senthil Senthil Kumar Selvaraj writes: > Hi, > > The below patch fixes what I think are a couple of problems with > reload.c:find_valid_class_1. > > First, even if no regno is in_hard_reg_set_p, it goes ahead and > considers rclass as valid. bad is set only if a regno is

[Patch, reload, tentative, PR 71627] Tweak conditions in find_valid_class_1

2016-09-16 Thread Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
Hi, The below patch fixes what I think are a couple of problems with reload.c:find_valid_class_1. First, even if no regno is in_hard_reg_set_p, it goes ahead and considers rclass as valid. bad is set only if a regno is in the reg class *and* HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK is false - if both are