On 10/21/2016 12:46 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
How does this look?
Looks good, thanks.
Bernd
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 x86_64-
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
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
>> actually available regnos f
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 regnos for mode in rclass.
gcc/testsui
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 thi
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
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 vers
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 in