This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][ARM] Improve 64-bit shifts (non-NEON)
On 02/08/2012 01:12 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Bernd Schmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 02/07/2012 11:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew
>>>> I find it interesting that cond_exec's in this form survive all the
>>>> way till reload and "work". AFAIK we could never have cond_exec's
>>>> before reload .
>>> There is nothing wrong per-se with cond_execs before reload, as long
>>> as you don't have to reload a predicate pseudo-reg.
>> I thought the problem was that we'd have to emit conditional reload
>> insns and inheritance wouldn't work.
> It probably depends on how DF sees conditional uses / defs. If they
> look like regular uses / defs then I suppose un-conditional spills/reloads
> are fine - otherwise of course you'd corrupt one of the two register set
I'm pretty sure conditional defs are always RMW, but I'd have to go
look. Can't imagine it working otherwise though.