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, RFC] Re-work find_reloads_subreg_address (Re: [PATCH][RFC, Reload]. Reload bug?)

From: Tejas Belagod <tbelagod at arm dot com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "bernds at codesourcery dot com" <bernds at codesourcery dot com>, "vmakarov at redhat dot com" <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:08:37 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Re-work find_reloads_subreg_address (Re: [PATCH][RFC, Reload]. Reload bug?)
References: <201207271813.q6RIDndW008541@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <501A6031.4040207@arm.com>

Tejas Belagod wrote:

Ulrich Weigand wrote:

The following patch implements this idea; it passes a basic regression
test on arm-linux-gnueabi.  (Obviously this would need a lot more
testing on various platforms before getting into mainline ...)

Can you have a look whether this fixes the problem you're seeing?


Sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for the patch. I tried this patch -  it
doesn't seem to reach as far as cleanup_subreg_operands (), but fails an
assertion in push_reload () in reload.c:1307. I'm currently investigating this
and will let you know the reason soon.

Hi,

Sorry for the delay in replying. These new issues that I was seeing were bugs specific to my code that I've fixed. Your patch seems to work fine. Thanks a lot for the patch.

Thanks,
Tejas Belagod.
ARM.

References:
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] Re-work find_reloads_subreg_address (Re: [PATCH][RFC, Reload]. Reload bug?)
  - From: Tejas Belagod

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