On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 06:50:50AM -0600, Aaron Sawdey wrote:
> > Anyway, my preference would be to change that gen_rtx_PLUS into
> > stack_parm = crtl->args.internal_arg_pointer;
> > if (!CONST_INT_P (offset_rtx))
> > stack_parm = gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, stack_parm, offset_rtx);
> > else
On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 11:13 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:55:58AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > But in that case, what does the copying?
> >
> > I don't know. Aaron will look at it, but timezones etc. :-)
Indeed I did see unshare_all_rtl() copying
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:55:58AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > But in that case, what does the copying?
>
> I don't know. Aaron will look at it, but timezones etc. :-)
>
> > That's what seems strange. I can see why we'd have two nested
> > pluses with the inner plus being
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:41:47AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:26:50PM
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:41:47AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:26:50PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> > > The code actually meant
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:26:50PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > > The code actually meant pointer comparison, the question is what is
>> > > different on powerpc*
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:41:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:26:50PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > The code actually meant pointer comparison, the question is what is
> > > different on powerpc* that you end up with a different REG.
> > > >From what I can
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:26:50PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > The code actually meant pointer comparison, the question is what is
> > different on powerpc* that you end up with a different REG.
> > >From what I can see, function.c uses crtl->args.internal_arg_pointer
> > directly rather
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:05:29PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 03:01:10PM -0600, Aaron Sawdey wrote:
> > /* If there is a DRAP register or a pseudo in internal_arg_pointer,
> > rewrite the incoming location of parameters passed on the stack
> > into MEMs based
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 03:01:10PM -0600, Aaron Sawdey wrote:
> /* If there is a DRAP register or a pseudo in internal_arg_pointer,
> rewrite the incoming location of parameters passed on the stack
> into MEMs based on the argument pointer, so that incoming doesn't
> depend on a
This bug appears to revolve around whether there is a canonical rtx for
internal_arg_pointer in var-tracking. In vt_add_function_parameter() we
currently have:
static void
vt_add_function_parameter (tree parm)
{
rtx decl_rtl = DECL_RTL_IF_SET (parm);
rtx incoming = DECL_INCOMING_RTL (parm);
11 matches
Mail list logo