This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: patch to build GCC for arm with LRA
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Yvan Roux <yvan dot roux at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew dot gretton-dann at linaro dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:24:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: patch to build GCC for arm with LRA
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAD57uCfSsANZvkMHmKphMHRnAxJNXGBxGEmSfhHSYwR7Jg9H-Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <877geri40k dot fsf at talisman dot default> <522D06E4 dot 1050602 at redhat dot com> <CAD57uCfpzd-7fKODP1oyWhY9f1QW2J=3BpMT3LAUMqC82Xvy0g at mail dot gmail dot com> <87zjrmgytu dot fsf at talisman dot default> <87vc2agymo dot fsf at talisman dot default> <CAD57uCfU3LMX+JM3yaJopqsp_rkJ3oyJv5g5VmJ5-9iyQvEMvQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
Yvan Roux <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Thanks for noticing it Richard, I made a refactoring mistake and addr
> was supposed to be used instead of x. In fact on AArch64 it occurs
> that we don't have stripped rtxes at this step and we have some of the
> form below, this if why I added the strip.
> (insn 29 27 5 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (sign_extract:DI (mult:DI
> (subreg:DI (reg/v:SI 76 [ elt ]) 0)
Yeah, but that's because strip_address_mutations doesn't consider
SIGN_EXTRACT to be a "mutation" as things stand. My point was that
I think it should, at least for the special extract-from-lsb case.
It then shouldn't be necessary to handle SIGN_EXTRACT in the other
(That might be what you meant, sorry, just thought I'd say in case.)