From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: pmw@uk.research.att.com (Paul Webster)
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Immediate Problems at the Reload Phase of GCC
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2746.951848730@upchuck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200002291823.SAA12545@rocoto>
In message < 200002291823.SAA12545@rocoto >you write:
>
> This question is regarding gcc version 2.95.2.
>
> I am working with an instruction set that contains an immediate and registe
> r
> based compare for equality instruction. The immediate version can take a 16
> -bit
> signed value and a register. The register version takes two registers.
>
> Currently, I have a define_insn for the register comparison. I also have a
> define_insn for the immediate variation, constrained to only accept 16-bit
> signed values.
Use a single define_insn with multiple alternative constraints.
> I guess the solution is to block this propogation in the reload phase?
No. That would just paper over the problem.
jeff
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: pmw@uk.research.att.com (Paul Webster)
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Immediate Problems at the Reload Phase of GCC
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2746.951848730@upchuck> (raw)
Message-ID: <20000401000000.PSuTkm7iEIb6fsvoUUQHUPpYzpgPx4VpXsrc_AbeFjo@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200002291823.SAA12545@rocoto>
In message < 200002291823.SAA12545@rocoto >you write:
>
> This question is regarding gcc version 2.95.2.
>
> I am working with an instruction set that contains an immediate and registe
> r
> based compare for equality instruction. The immediate version can take a 16
> -bit
> signed value and a register. The register version takes two registers.
>
> Currently, I have a define_insn for the register comparison. I also have a
> define_insn for the immediate variation, constrained to only accept 16-bit
> signed values.
Use a single define_insn with multiple alternative constraints.
> I guess the solution is to block this propogation in the reload phase?
No. That would just paper over the problem.
jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-02-29 10:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-02-29 10:23 Paul Webster
2000-02-29 10:29 ` Jeffrey A Law [this message]
2000-04-01 0:00 ` Jeffrey A Law
2000-04-01 0:00 ` Paul Webster
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=2746.951848730@upchuck \
--to=law@cygnus.com \
--cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=pmw@uk.research.att.com \
/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).