This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: enable LRA for rs6000 [patch for WRF]
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Bergner, Peter" <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, aavrunin at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:55:20 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA: enable LRA for rs6000 [patch for WRF]
- References: <5166F34C dot 30901 at redhat dot com> <20130415224853 dot GA17643 at ibm-tiger dot the-meissners dot org> <20130416225639 dot GA16621 at ibm-tiger dot the-meissners dot org> <516EAE5D dot 4080601 at redhat dot com> <20130417161042 dot GA22186 at ibm-tiger dot the-meissners dot org> <51705B25 dot 6020402 at redhat dot com> <5171B43B dot 5070400 at redhat dot com> <20130422043535 dot GC22536 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <51758EF5 dot 8050209 at redhat dot com> <20130422193149 dot GA5792 at ibm-tiger dot the-meissners dot org> <5175D919 dot 1070704 at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Vladimir Makarov <email@example.com> wrote:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (legitimate_lo_sum_address_p): Remove
> lra_in_progress guard for addressing something bigger than word.
That will work, but I'm worried that it is too fragile. Previously
the code uniformly returned consistent values from the various
legitimate address functions. Changing the response based on
lra_in_progress for various modes seems like a problem waiting to