This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns
- From: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>
- To: <ramrad01 at arm dot com>
- Cc: <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>, Yury Gribov <y dot gribov at samsung dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:29:36 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM][PING] Reintroduce minipool ranges for zero-extension insn patterns
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52E13252 dot 2090900 at samsung dot com> <CAJA7tRbK8wpzVkm_HrNO+b6oiihaxKJ83DyKHKnUXd1CnfQYuw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:09:27 +0000
Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov@samsung.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Julian Brown has proposed patch
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01191.html) for the
> > dreadful push_minipool_fix error
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423) in June but it
> > didn't seem to get enough attention.#
>
>
> That patch appears to be garbled with text that appears to be from a
> testcase.
That's bizarre! I have no idea how that can have happened.
> It needs to be rebased for trunk to deal with the additional
> changes to the attributes currently.. Additionally I'm not really sure
> why there is an additional load from the constant pool here - what is
> the constant in this case ? Given it is atmost a 16 bit constant
> surely that should be loaded with a single mov(w) instruction in armv7
> land.
I've lost the context on this patch now, but I may be able to have a
look some time in the next few days and refresh my memory --
particularly if there's a testcase available that reproduces on current
mainline.
Thanks,
Julian