This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RFA: MIPS patch (was Re: MEM tracking, round 3)


    I meant <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-07/msg00245.html>.  Like
    I say, I don't know if it is the same problem or not.

No, it's not.  That was a problem in caller-save.c, which was quickly fixed.

    Yes, I agreee that describes the function of the MEM perfectly
    accurately.  But the old code didn't do what you describe.  To requote
    from above, it used to read:

	      operands[2] = adj_offsettable_operand (op1, 4);

    which gave operands[2] the same mode as op1, i.e. a DImode or a DFmode.

Yes, that's true.  But that was incorrect, though nothing ever checked it.

    I mean (from the patch I sent) it would be cleaner to make the
    following work:
    
    *************** mips_move_2words (operands, insn)
    *** 2552,2563 ****
      	    }
  
      	  else if (double_memory_operand (op1, GET_MODE (op1)))
    ! 	    {
    ! 	      operands[2] = adjust_address (op1, SImode, 4);
    ! 	      ret = (reg_mentioned_p (op0, op1)
    ! 		     ? "lw\t%D0,%2\n\tlw\t%0,%1"
    ! 		     : "lw\t%0,%1\n\tlw\t%D0,%2");
    ! 	    }
  
  	  if (ret != 0 && MEM_VOLATILE_P (op1))
  	    {
    --- 2552,2560 ----
  	    }
  
  	  else if (double_memory_operand (op1, GET_MODE (op1)))
    ! 	    ret = (reg_mentioned_p (op0, op1)
    ! 		   ? "lw\t%D0,%D1\n\tlw\t%0,%1"
    ! 		   : "lw\t%0,%1\n\tlw\t%D0,%D1");
  
  	  if (ret != 0 && MEM_VOLATILE_P (op1))
  	    {

I agree that's probably the best approach, but I'm not competant to
judge things at that level on the MIPS port.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]