This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: patch to build GCC for arm with LRA
- From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "rdsandiford at googlemail dot com" <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:21:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA: patch to build GCC for arm with LRA
- References: <51CC6077 dot 6050401 at redhat dot com> <8738s3cyx5 dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <51CC6908 dot 1040005 at redhat dot com> <51CC6D6E dot 5020708 at arm dot com> <51CC6F56 dot 1060809 at redhat dot com> <51CC720B dot 5090501 at arm dot com>
On 06/27/2013 01:10 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 27/06/13 17:59, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> On 06/27/2013 12:50 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 27/06/13 17:32, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>>>> On 06/27/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>>> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>>> Richard, is it ok to commit to the trunk?
>>>>> Looks good to me, but I gave up the right to approve it. I think you
>>>>> need ROTATERT too though (see arm_legitimate_index_p).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, sorry for the nitpick, but once the full condition overflows
>>>>> one line,
>>>>> I think each == test should be on its own line.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the comments. Here is the new version of the patch:
>>>>
>>>> 2013-06-27 Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> * rtlanal.c (must_be_index_p, set_address_index): Add
>>>> ASHIFTRT,
>>>> LSHIFTRT, and ROTATERT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Although it's not needed for ARM, why would you leave out ROTATE?
>>>
>>> Hmm, on second thoughts ROTATERT immediate is always canonicalized to
>>> ROTATE (Pmode-size - imm), so it might be needed on ARM too.
>> Thanks, Richard. I guess we can include ROTATE. It definitely will not
>> hurt but it might be useful for other targets too.
>>
>> So I added ROTATE to the patch and like to get approval for it too.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, and another thought, AArch64 will probably need ZERO_EXTEND and
> SIGN_EXTEND as well.
>
It is already implemented as many targets use it.