Re: [PATCH][ARM] VFP load/store index

[Chung-Lin Tang <cltang at pllab dot cs dot nthu dot edu dot tw>]

Hi, thank you for approving the patch.
Could you also apply it for me? I don't have commit rights yet...

Thanks,
C.L.


Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 02:06 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>   
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >     
> > > Can't this be combined with the FPA/MAVERICK case immediately
> > > preceeding?  The offsets should be the same.
> > >
> > > Also, do you have a test case?
> > >       
> > I see what you mean; originally I intended to avoid the mode class == MODE_FLOAT test in the FPA/Maverick case, to not step on the HFmode cases handled below, so I simply broke off a new if-clause.
> >
> > But come to think of it, maybe the right way should be to combine the cases, and fix the FPA/Maverick case to avoid HFmode too. So here's the updated patch. Thanks for pointing out the similarities Daniel.
> >
> > I now have a test case attached, as a patch to gcc.target/arm/vfp-1.c. These are assembler scan tests for a new added test_ldst() function. You can observe the differences in generated code for this function, before and after the patch.
> >
> > C.L.
> >
> >
> > 2009-08-01 Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@pllab.cs.nthu.edu.tw>
> >
> >    gcc/
> >    * config/arm/arm.c (arm_legitimate_index_p): Add VFP load/store
> >    index range case. Change to SF/DFmode tests to avoid capturing HFmode.
> >
> >    gcc/testsuite/
> >    * gcc.target/arm/vfp-1.c (test_ldst): New test for VFP load/store
> >    immediate indexes.
> >     
>
> OK
>
> R.
>
>
>