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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/28690, indexed load/store performance + reload bug

From: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich dot weigand at de dot ibm dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:51:14 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/28690, indexed load/store performance + reload bug
References: <20061211183126.GA914@vervain.rchland.ibm.com> <200612112046.kBBKksV38062@makai.watson.ibm.com>

On Dec 11, 2006, at 12:46 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:

	Hmm.  There don't appear to be many options.  This is just how
GCC's current register allocator works.  Another intermediate register
class probably would encounter the same problem.

	This patch is okay, but please update the comment above the
predicate explaining why accepting anything for reload_in_progress is
necessary.

Thanks, David

I'm doubtful a target-specific fix is the right idea. Don't other targets have the same problem?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/28690, indexed load/store performance + reload bug
  - From: Ulrich Weigand
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/28690, indexed load/store performance + reload bug
  - From: Michael Matz

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/28690, indexed load/store performance + reload bug
  - From: Peter Bergner
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR middle-end/28690, indexed load/store performance + reload bug
  - From: David Edelsohn

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