This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Fix illegal assembly 'eon v1, v2, v3'


On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:04:04PM +0000, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:32:45PM +0000, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > Ok for stage 4?
> 
> This is a regression from 4.9, so once we iron out some nits, it should
> be.
> 
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > 
> > 	* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*xor_one_cmpl<mode>3): Use FP_REGNUM_P
> > 	as split condition.
> 
> And a testcase, please!
> 
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> > index bc49fbe68a978b3ca069c6d084f542773df84bcb..d4b3f7b03ba0ab570cec5ce862e8c5f38f417ed1 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> > @@ -3054,7 +3054,7 @@
> >                            (match_operand:GPI 2 "register_operand" "r,w"))))]
> >    ""
> >    "eon\\t%<w>0, %<w>1, %<w>2" ;; For GPR registers (only).
> 
> This should be:
> "@
>  eon\\t%<w>0, %<w>1, %<w>2
>  #"
> 
> which would have forced a split.
> 
> Your patch is useful regardless, as I guess we could have ended up
> needlessly splitting if we got unlucky with whatever had been left
> in which_alternative.

Hi Alan,

Do you have any plans to respin this patch? I'd like to see it fixed
for GCC 5.0 if possible.

Thanks,
James


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]