From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50746 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2016 07:47:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 50714 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2016 07:47:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:788, HX-Envelope-From:sk:ebotcaz, H*F:U*ebotcazou, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:7Bit X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:47:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541EA813B3; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:47:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Bqk3YG8Jjd3; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:47:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32C8B813AC; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:47:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Uros Bizjak Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386]: Extend TARGET_READ_MODIFY{,_WRITE} peepholes to all integer modes Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1744658.Bp6bspGrA0@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/3.16.7-35-desktop; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg01936.txt.bz2 > While looking at the insn enable condition, I noticed that we don't > use "probe_stack" pattern any more, as the stack check loop is now > implemented in a different way. Yes, we do, probe_stack is a standard pattern called by the middle-end. > 2016-04-28 Uros Bizjak > > * config/i386/i386.md (peephole2s for operations with memory inputs): > Use SWI mode iterator. > (peephole2s for operations with memory outputs): Ditto. > Do not check for stack checking probe. > > (probe_stack): Remove expander. > > Patch was bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}. How did you test it exactly? === acats tests === FAIL: c52103x FAIL: c52104x -- Eric Botcazou