On 08/12/2018 16:23, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/8/18 5:14 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew Stubbs writes:
On 21/11/2018 00:47, Jeff Law wrote:
This seems like a really gross hack and sets an expectation that
generating registers in the target after IRA has started is OK. It is
not OK. THe
On 12/8/18 5:14 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Andrew Stubbs writes:
>> On 21/11/2018 00:47, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> This seems like a really gross hack and sets an expectation that
>>> generating registers in the target after IRA has started is OK. It is
>>> not OK. THe fact that this works is,
Andrew Stubbs writes:
> On 21/11/2018 00:47, Jeff Law wrote:
>> This seems like a really gross hack and sets an expectation that
>> generating registers in the target after IRA has started is OK. It is
>> not OK. THe fact that this works is, IMHO, likely an accident.
>
> What's the proper test
On 21/11/2018 00:47, Jeff Law wrote:
This seems like a really gross hack and sets an expectation that
generating registers in the target after IRA has started is OK. It is
not OK. THe fact that this works is, IMHO, likely an accident.
What's the proper test for this? Neither lra_in_progress
On 11/16/18 9:27 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
> This patch is unchanged from that which was posted before. Discussion
> fizzled out there and I was too busy with other patches to restart it
> then. This issue needs to be resolved before libgfortran can be
> compiled for GCN.
>
> The IRA pass
This patch is unchanged from that which was posted before. Discussion
fizzled out there and I was too busy with other patches to restart it
then. This issue needs to be resolved before libgfortran can be
compiled for GCN.
The IRA pass makes an assumption that any pseudos created after the pass
