From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71FFE385BF92 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:43:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 71FFE385BF92 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 031JXLQ3048943; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:43:16 -0400 Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 302070rbpj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 01 Apr 2020 15:43:16 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 031JgcXT031343; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:43:16 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 301x773bgm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 01 Apr 2020 19:43:16 +0000 Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.234]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 031JhFU041812348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:43:15 GMT Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8106A05F; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:43:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1076A063; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:43:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.160.53.188] (unknown [9.160.53.188]) by b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 19:43:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] lower-subreg: PR94123, SVN r273240, causes gcc.target/powerpc/pr87507.c to fail To: richard.sandiford@arm.com References: <20ee8944-f0bf-cec1-e3d1-5dd5e9c6a4ef@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Segher Boessenkool , gcc-patches , "ian@airs.com" From: Peter Bergner Message-ID: <07b4852f-a6d1-02a3-81fd-c7fa20c084c8@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:43:13 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-04-01_04:2020-03-31, 2020-04-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=920 suspectscore=1 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004010156 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 19:43:35 -0000 On 4/1/20 1:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Peter Bergner 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