This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Fixed bootstrap failure in Thumb mode
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Yvan Roux <yvan dot roux at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, Patch Tracking <patches at linaro dot org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:52:43 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Fixed bootstrap failure in Thumb mode
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAD57uCejV6qjR2uvwP4cMfBx-qaxZHH9+reqhW91QO2-Ry7Rvg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD57uCd0Ga4WzqUW2NmL4B1tGmbDtv8=OmhUwP1muZb14pB+Pw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD57uCfJAf3uSAvF62CMMCe9rb=jWO+2eDbLd3U6=RTcmK9UBQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <52962902 dot 5020703 at redhat dot com> <CAD57uCcZgLuUVn3C4JgVGPawrNv3-LS4KJOe_siVyzEhvkwqFQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 27/11/13 17:49, Yvan Roux wrote:
>> How can that be correct?
>>
>> The secondary reload macros/hooks define cases where additional registers
>> are needed to reload certain forms of rtl. I doubt the use of LRA
>> completely eliminates the need for secondary reloads.
>
> Vladimir explained me that in that case on arm, secondary reload hook
> confuses LRA, and that returning NO_REGS will let LRA deal with
> constraints, but I may have badly understand what he said.
>
> Yvan
>
But wasn't that in the context of PREFERRED_RELOAD_CLASS? That's a
different beast.
R.
- References:
- [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Fixed bootstrap failure in Thumb mode
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Fixed bootstrap failure in Thumb mode
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Fixed bootstrap failure in Thumb mode
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Fixed bootstrap failure in Thumb mode
- Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Fixed bootstrap failure in Thumb mode