This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [lra] patch from Richard Sandiford's review of lra-constraints.c
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:03:28 +0100
- Subject: Re: [lra] patch from Richard Sandiford's review of lra-constraints.c
- References: <507AF80A.9040900@redhat.com>
Thanks for the updates, they look good to me.
Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes:
> @@ -100,8 +102,9 @@
> o for pseudos needing save/restore code around calls.
>
> If the split pseudo still has the same hard register as the
> - original pseudo after the subsequent assignment pass, the opposite
> - transformation is done on the same pass for undoing inheritance. */
> + original pseudo after the subsequent assignment pass or the
> + original pseudo was split, the opposite transformation is done on
> + the same pass for undoing inheritance. */
Looks like this should be "original pseudo was spilled" rather than "split".
> @@ -2276,11 +2157,7 @@ process_alt_operands (int only_alternati
> then. */
> if (! (REG_P (op)
> && REGNO (op) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
> - && ! (const_to_mem && constmemok)
> - /* We can reload the address instead of memory (so
> - do not punish it). It is preferable to do to
> - avoid cycling in some cases. */
> - && ! (MEM_P (op) && offmemok))
> + && ! (const_to_mem && constmemok))
> reject += 2;
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting you change this. I think the old version
was correct. I'll follow up on the other thread.
Richard