This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Patch:H8/300] Absolute address mode support for bit_operand predicate

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Kaushik Phatak <Kaushik dot Phatak at kpitcummins dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Prafulla Thakare <Prafulla dot Thakare at kpitcummins dot com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:41:49 -0600
Subject: Re: [Patch:H8/300] Absolute address mode support for bit_operand predicate
References: <F56EA673D3E56E48804FE2B0D23EFD2D216A84E0C1@KCINPUNHJCMS01.kpit.com> <4BC750C3.20400@redhat.com> <F56EA673D3E56E48804FE2B0D23EFD2D216A9AFF36@KCINPUNHJCMS01.kpit.com> <4BC88164.3070709@redhat.com>

On 04/16/10 09:25, Jeff Law wrote:

On 04/16/10 01:19, Kaushik Phatak wrote:

Also, could you please apply the following approved patch to 4.6,

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00373.html
I was looking at it yesterday; I'm investigating a codesize regression with that patch. I'll post to the list once I've got a handle on what the problem is.


	(xorqi3) : Add support for H8300SX.
This hunk for h8300.md is clearly good, though the pattern name is wrong.  I've installed it (fixing the ChangeLog appropriately).
I'm still looking for the codesize regression in the other hunks.

jeff

References:
- [Patch:H8/300] Absolute address mode support for bit_operand predicate
  - From: Kaushik Phatak
- Re: [Patch:H8/300] Absolute address mode support for bit_operand predicate
  - From: Jeff Law
- RE: [Patch:H8/300] Absolute address mode support for bit_operand predicate
  - From: Kaushik Phatak
- Re: [Patch:H8/300] Absolute address mode support for bit_operand predicate
  - From: Jeff Law

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]