This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RS6000] rs6000_preferred_reload_class
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:12:36 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RS6000] rs6000_preferred_reload_class
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160731233042.GA20904@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20160803193052.GA13392@ibm-tiger.the-meissners.org> <20160804051434.GK20904@bubble.grove.modra.org>
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:44:34PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:30:53PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:00:43AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Hi Mike,
> > > I've been looking at a lot of reload/lra code lately in trying to fix
> > > pr71680, and noticed a change to rs6000_preferred_reload_class.
> > >
> > > In https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00134.html you made
> > > preferred_reload_class pick a register class when given NO_REGS as an
> > > argument. That seems odd to me given the usual behaviour of
> > > preferred_reload_class is to restrict reg classes. Did you mean to
> > > make that change? I'm wondering whether something you were playing
> > > with escaped upstream, because there is no ChangeLog for it as far as
> > > I can see..
> >
> > I was playing with that, but given the patch was meant to be complex only, I
> > suspect we should try taking it out now, and see if it affects anything.
>
> Now bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux and
> powerpc64-linux. OK to apply?
Okay, thanks,
Segher
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_preferred_reload_class): Delete
> code accidentally committed 2016-05-02 providing class when given
> NO_REGS.