public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "law at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/116236] [LRA] [M68K] ICE insn does not satisfy its constraints
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 18:45:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-116236-4-g7vJXukTW3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-116236-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116236

--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
In general I would think rejecting is right way to go under the general
guidance of making the predicates and such match what the underlying hardware
can actually do.  So for example, if we we have (mem (reg X)) and we can in
theory propagate d0 resulting in (mem (reg d0)).  Conceptually that might be
worth rejecting.

But you'd have to actually evaluate how it impacts the code -- the m68k port
was written at a time when the standard way to deal with these problems was
punt to reload.  And while a change may make conceptual sense (like tightening
the address checking routines, predicates, etc), such changes may actually make
the resultant code worse.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-08-10 18:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-05  7:55 [Bug target/116236] New: " schwab@linux-m68k.org
2024-08-05  8:06 ` [Bug target/116236] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
2024-08-05 12:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-05 12:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-05 13:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-05 13:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-05 14:27 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-05 15:36 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-10 12:15 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-10 14:52 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-10 15:20 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2024-08-10 17:11 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-10 18:45 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-08-12 13:05 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-12 16:50 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-13 12:44 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-13 13:11 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-13 16:04 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-13 17:20 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-13 18:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-13 18:04 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-14  8:31 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2024-08-15 12:41 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-15 13:21 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-15 15:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-15 15:58 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 11:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-20 15:13 ` gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-21  0:02 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-116236-4-g7vJXukTW3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).