Re: Reload/i386 patch for secondary memory vs subregs

2012-08-11 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 08/11/2012 04:20 PM, John David Anglin wrote: >> * reload1.c (replaced_subreg): New static function. >> (gen_reload): Use it when deciding whether to use secondary >> memory. > > This causes the following on hppa*-*-* (32-bit): > > ../../gcc/gcc/reload1.c: In function 'rtx_def*

Re: Reload/i386 patch for secondary memory vs subregs

2012-08-11 Thread John David Anglin
> * reload1.c (replaced_subreg): New static function. > (gen_reload): Use it when deciding whether to use secondary > memory. This causes the following on hppa*-*-* (32-bit): ../../gcc/gcc/reload1.c: In function 'rtx_def* gen_reload(rtx, rtx, int, reload_ type)': ../../gcc/gcc/r

[RFC PATCH, i386]: Improve LIMIT_RELOAD_CLASSES [was: Reload/i386 patch for secondary memory vs subregs]

2012-08-04 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> Without this, on the new testcase we hit the assert in >> inline_secondary_memory_needed. The comment before the function states: >> >> The macro can't work reliably when one of the CLASSES is class >> containing registers from multiple u

Re: Reload/i386 patch for secondary memory vs subregs

2012-08-03 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 08/03/2012 08:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> Hello! >> >>> Bootstrapped and tested on i686-linux. It's also been in several of our >>> internal trees, going back to even 4.4-based ones IIRC, and has had >>> testing for several architectures.

Re: Reload/i386 patch for secondary memory vs subregs

2012-08-03 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 08/03/2012 08:50 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > Hello! > >> Bootstrapped and tested on i686-linux. It's also been in several of our >> internal trees, going back to even 4.4-based ones IIRC, and has had >> testing for several architectures. Ok for the i386 part? I intend to >> check the reload bits i

Re: Reload/i386 patch for secondary memory vs subregs

2012-08-03 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! > Bootstrapped and tested on i686-linux. It's also been in several of our > internal trees, going back to even 4.4-based ones IIRC, and has had > testing for several architectures. Ok for the i386 part? I intend to > check the reload bits in soon if there are no objections. Index: gcc/conf

Reload/i386 patch for secondary memory vs subregs

2012-08-03 Thread Bernd Schmidt
There are a number of problems in the interaction between secondary memory and subregs. If we reload the inner of a subreg, we forget about this when deciding whether to use secondary memory, and just use REGNO_REG_CLASS on the (now reloaded) inner. Also, we don't really know what to do if we get