This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- From: Yvan Roux <yvan dot roux at linaro dot org>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, Yvan Roux <yvan dot roux at linaro dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu 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>, "rdsandiford at googlemail dot com" <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:16:35 +0200
- 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> <87bo3igoss dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com>
hmm, I don't see clearly where we loose the XEXP (x, n) information
when calling must_be_base_p(*inner) and/or must_be_index_p(*inner) in
set_address_base and set_address_index.
BTW, the validation on ARM (AARch32 and AARch64) is clean.
Thanks,
Yvan
On 24 September 2013 18:36, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.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
>> must_be_index_p,
>> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
- References:
- [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA