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, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes

From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:29:54 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <CAFULd4bqYNLd0P4Vb7Oi3F0Y2ieDNG0peGqeD9kww7s6jkSCMw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1744658 dot Bp6bspGrA0 at polaris> <CAFULd4ZdU2HAi8=m9N7TouJQ81wWOW0EsVs36dRUOTW1gVQM9A at mail dot gmail dot com> <3466465 dot kPQ0hp1mLX at polaris>

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> We can put it back, but prehaps implemented as unspec, so it won't
>> interfere with peepholes?
>
> No strong opinion, as long as the final assembly is the same as before.

I'm testing the attached patch. Does it fix your ada failures?

Uros.

Attachment: r.diff.txt
Description: Text document

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes
  - From: Eric Botcazou

References:
- [PATCH, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- Re: [PATCH, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- Re: [PATCH, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes
  - From: Eric Botcazou

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