This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Yvan Roux <yvan dot roux at linaro dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, 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>, Patch Tracking <patches at linaro dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:36:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAD57uCfrF9Ns=jghNJOD07p5wg+_zcTc6wmfOknau3iSg4FvWg at mail dot gmail dot com> <6167547 dot VzsJUD1RGx at polaris> <CAD57uCfud6AtOA+sMM0pQ9wmg1M7Gd9JC9ikZiOmJj8179wKjA at mail dot gmail dot com> <2645374 dot 4NZeFxJkzv at polaris>
Eric Botcazou <email@example.com> writes:
>> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand well, it means that you prefer the
>> shift_and _rotate_code_p notation, right ?
> Let's do the following in addition to the lsb_bitfield_op_p thing:
> 1. Replace the LO_SUM test in set_address_base by a call to must_be_base_p,
> 2. Replace the MULT || ASHIFT test in set_address_index by a call to
> 3. Add the new cases to must_be_index_p directly, with a comment saying that
> there are e.g. for the ARM.
FWIW, I'd prefer to keep it as-is, since must_be_base_p (x) and
must_be_index_p (x) don't imply that we should look specifically at
XEXP (x, 0) (rather than just X, or XEXP (x, 1), etc.). I think it's
better to keep the code tests and the associated XEXPs together.