This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LRA Vs match_scratch
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Claudiu Zissulescu <claziss at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:00:47 -0500
- Subject: Re: LRA Vs match_scratch
- References: <CAL0iMy2GaGMx6MKRn3tada=pzwL48OG5pYme1-CQex2PVZ_Ppw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Claudiu,
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 11:11:44AM +0200, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
> I am trying to get LRA fully working for ARC, but I've got an issue.
> Whenever, LRA analyses an instruction having (clobber
> (match_scratch:SI 3 "=X, ...)) in its pattern I hit the assert in
> lra-constraints.c:4101, and it seems it has to do with the scratch's
> 'X' constraint.
> Do I miss something? Is there any limitation between LRA and scratch
> operands having in their alternative 'X' constraint?
There are other targets with =X in an alternative for a clobber match_scratch,
like rs6000, and that does work fine with LRA. It doesn't hit that assert,
anyway ;-)
Do you have some debug output to show what is going on here?
Segher