From: Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>
To: richard.sandiford@arm.com
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
"ian@airs.com" <ian@airs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lower-subreg: PR94123, SVN r273240, causes gcc.target/powerpc/pr87507.c to fail
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:43:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07b4852f-a6d1-02a3-81fd-c7fa20c084c8@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mpt7dyz5a6l.fsf@arm.com>
On 4/1/20 1:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> Have we come to consensus on whether to split the options or not?
>> I think Segher is against it given we actually have 3 passes of
>> lower-subreg and -fsplit-wide-types would control the 1st and 3rd
>> passes and -fsplit-wide-types-early would control the second.
>> That does seem strange to me too.
>
> I guess the name of the option is a bit weird, since it'll control
> the middle pass of three. That's going to be true either way though.
>
> We're talking about having independent options controlling independent
> passes, which seems like a Good Thing in general and doesn't seem that
> strange to me in this case. But I'm certainly happy to yield given the
> strong opinions the other way.
Ok, I pushed the patch without breaking them apart. We can maybe revisit
the issue in stage1, when I'll start testing the first patch that allows
hard registers to be decomposed.
Thanks!
Peter
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-01 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-27 22:41 Peter Bergner
2020-03-27 23:26 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2020-03-28 19:22 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-03-28 23:39 ` Peter Bergner
2020-04-02 21:56 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-03-30 8:50 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-03-30 11:26 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-03-30 16:23 ` Peter Bergner
2020-03-30 16:26 ` Peter Bergner
2020-03-30 16:39 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-03-30 16:06 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-04-01 17:48 ` Peter Bergner
2020-04-01 18:32 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-04-01 19:43 ` Peter Bergner [this message]
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=07b4852f-a6d1-02a3-81fd-c7fa20c084c8@linux.ibm.com \
--to=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=ian@airs.com \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.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).