This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch, arm] Fix PR target/50305 (arm_legitimize_reload_address problem)
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rearnsha at arm dot com, patches at linaro dot org
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:17:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch, arm] Fix PR target/50305 (arm_legitimize_reload_address problem)
- References: <CACUk7=U3uiTLZjCRHznkUYhFNFJA7XpzTqV=VuMCsgU+uCK4GQ@mail.gmail.com> <201110041513.p94FDVve022537@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
On 4 October 2011 16:13, Ulrich Weigand <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On 26 September 2011 15:24, Ulrich Weigand <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Is this sufficient, or should I test any other set of options as well?
>> Could you run one set of tests with neon ?
> Sorry for the delay, but I had to switch to my IGEP board for Neon
> support, and that's a bit slow ... ? In any case, I've now completed
> testing the patch with Neon with no regressions.
>> > Just to clarify: in the presence of the other options that are already
>> > in dg-options, the test case now fails (with the unpatched compiler)
>> > for *any* setting of -mfloat-abi (hard, soft, or softfp). ?Do you still
>> > want me to add a specific setting to the test case?
>> No the mfpu=vfpv3 is fine.
> OK, thanks.
>> Instead of skipping I was wondering if we
>> could prune the outputs to get this through all the testers we have.
> Well, the problem is that with certain -march options (e.g. armv7) we get:
> error: target CPU does not support ARM mode
Ah - ok.
> Since this is an *error*, pruning the output doesn't really help, the
> test isn't being run in any case.
>> Otherwise this is OK.
> Given the above, is the patch now OK as-is?
OK by me.