> I would like another set of eyes on the backend specific changes - I
> am currently regression testing this final version on FSF trunk.
After testing and benchmarking and getting some private feedback about
the patch, this is what I ended up committing. I have a follow up
patch coming to adjust
On 28 March 2012 11:13, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>>> And the patch is now attached
>>
>> This does not look like it would compile on any other target.
>
> Looks li
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> And the patch is now attached
>
> This does not look like it would compile on any other target.
Looks like the macros are pre-existing in rtl.h. With that the ivopt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> And the patch is now attached
This does not look like it would compile on any other target.
Richard.
> Ramana
And the patch is now attached
Ramana
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h
index 900d09a..6e82fb0 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h
@@ -247,5 +247,5 @@ extern int vfp3_const_double_for_fract_bits (rtx);
extern void a
Hi,
One of the problems with ivopts is that the auto-increment modelling
just takes into account whether HAVE_PRE_INC and friends are defined
for the architecture. However on ARM the VFP addressing modes don't
really support PRE_INCREMENT and POST_DECREMENT forms and hence there
is a bias in ivopt
