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.
next prev 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: linkBe 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).