This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: patch to fix 2 testsuite failures for LRA on PPC
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:45:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFA: patch to fix 2 testsuite failures for LRA on PPC
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52A0BA81 dot 2030108 at redhat dot com> <CAGWvnykM-ryffpHhisXjxocWN-j82syOrr7iLZn_j0+Ct99wxQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <52A1EFB1 dot 2080404 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:39:29AM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Ok. I guess there is only one option to use one pattern for LRA
> and reload without ?? in register alternative. In this case, reload
> and LRA will actually work according to GCC documentation (LRA
> treats ? cost as the cost of one reload, reload does the same but
> not in this case).
>
> That was my first solution but you were not comfortable with this too.
>
> Changing LRA most sensitive code to behave (wrongly in this case)
> as reload is not an option for me.
>
> So I don't know what to do anymore to fix this 2 failures.
Could it be handled by enabled attribute? You'd duplicate the
alternatives, one would be with the ??, one without, and enabled
attribute on the insn would be 1 for the first two alternatives
and also for the ?? alternative if not LRA, or non-?? alternative
if LRA.
Jakub