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: RFC: patch to build GCC for arm with LRA


Yvan Roux <yvan.roux@linaro.org> writes:
> Thanks for noticing it Richard, I made a refactoring mistake and addr
> was supposed to be used instead of x.  In fact on AArch64 it occurs
> that we don't have stripped rtxes at this step and we have some of the
> form below, this if why I added the strip.
>
> (insn 29 27 5 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (sign_extract:DI (mult:DI
> (subreg:DI (reg/v:SI 76 [ elt ]) 0)

Yeah, but that's because strip_address_mutations doesn't consider
SIGN_EXTRACT to be a "mutation" as things stand.  My point was that
I think it should, at least for the special extract-from-lsb case.
It then shouldn't be necessary to handle SIGN_EXTRACT in the other
address-analysis routines.

(That might be what you meant, sorry, just thought I'd say in case.)

Thanks,
Richard


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