[PATCH] [PR99581] Define relaxed memory and use it for aarch64

[Vladimir Makarov]

On 2021-03-21 8:51 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes:
>> On 2021-03-19 11:42 a.m., Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>>>> The following patch solves P1 PR99581
>>>>
>>>>        https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
>>>>
>>>> The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le,
>>>> aarch64.
>>>>
>>>> Is it ok for the trunk?
>>> I'm not trying to reject the patch as such.  I just think we need to
>>> have a clearer picture first.
>>>
>> I agree that 'o' should be treated as a subset of 'm' and therefore its
>> definition should have a check as 'm' has.  Still my patch is not about
>> treatment of constraint 'o' only.
>>
>> My approach for LRA development is minimal changes, as radical changes
>> (even if they look right) results long lasting unpredictable effects on
>> many targets.
>>
>> The patch in which you introduced a new function valid_address_p and new
>> treatment of **all** memory constraints was too big change with this
>> point of view and finally it resulted in this problem after recent
>> partially fixing mess in process_address_1.
>>
>> My patch fixes this radical change. So I think we still need the patch
>> I've submitted.
> OK, fair enough.  I have some minor cosmetic comments below, but
> otherwise the patch is OK for trunk and branch.
>
Richard, thank you for your review and approval.  I incorporated all 
your proposals into the patch and committed it into the trunk.  The 
final patch is in the attachment.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pr99581-2.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 20395 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20210322/06e8266d/attachment-0001.bin>