This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve 64-bit shifts (non-NEON)
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>, Andrew Stubbs <ams at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "patches at linaro dot org" <patches at linaro dot org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:02:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve 64-bit shifts (non-NEON)
- References: <4F22CBB2.7010101@codesourcery.com> <4F26B687.8020506@arm.com> <4F27FAC0.1010107@codesourcery.com> <CACUk7=VFbmkQOTo3ZXA2FMyt14zhiAonArBghFhBrBdvBQGvHg@mail.gmail.com> <CABu31nOjG44Um43EKRad=aP-Gz91QsdU_XFHC9xi8vjcbTZnWw@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/07/2012 11:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all the
>> way till reload and "work". AFAIK we could never have cond_exec's
>> before reload .
>
> There is nothing wrong per-se with cond_execs before reload, as long
> as you don't have to reload a predicate pseudo-reg.
I thought the problem was that we'd have to emit conditional reload
insns and inheritance wouldn't work.
Bernd