This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Register allocation trouble
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at acm dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:14:46 -0600
- Subject: Re: Register allocation trouble
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=law at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com C37F4461D6
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C37F4461D6
- References: <fbdaf90e-6d1c-e9db-3d07-1b489f909b38@mentor.com> <79aaefa2-7360-a3b1-474b-2a509730d332@acm.org>
On 07/21/2017 12:40 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/21/2017 07:50 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>
>> (set (match_operand:SI "register_operand" "=a,b")
>> (match_operand:SI "memory_operand" "Ra,Rb"))
>
>
> How horrible would it be to split expose the entire mem:
>
> (set (match_operand:SI "register" "=a,b")
> (mem:SI (match_operand:SI "register" "a,b")))
> + variants for reg+const if you have them?
Doesn't that run afoul of the various restrictions on the movXX patterns?
jeff