From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17189 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2012 11:35:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 16887 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2012 11:35:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.111) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:35:04 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:35:02 +0100 Received: from d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.38.233) by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.145) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:34:40 +0100 Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q5TBYdt62253044 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:34:39 +0100 Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q5TBYcmt025433 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:34:39 -0600 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id q5TBYbLw025341; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:34:37 -0600 Message-Id: <201206291134.q5TBYbLw025341@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:34:37 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC, Reload]. Reload bug? To: tbelagod@arm.com (Tejas Belagod) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:16:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org) In-Reply-To: <4FECA40A.4090309@arm.com> from "Tejas Belagod" at Jun 28, 2012 07:35:54 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12062911-0342-0000-0000-00000224569F 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg01921.txt.bz2 Tejas Belagod wrote: > Therefore strict_memory_address_addr_space_P () thinks that > (mem:OI (reg sp)) is a valid target address and lets it pass as > a subreg and does not narrow the subreg into a narrower memref. > find_reloads_toplev () should have infact given > strict_memory_address_addr_space_P () > (mem:OI (plus:DI (reg sp) (const_int 16))) > which will be returned as false as base+offset is invalid for NEON > addressing modes and this will be reloaded into a narrower memref. Huh. I would have expected the offsettable_memref_p check > - && (reg_equiv_address (regno) != 0 > - || (reg_equiv_mem (regno) != 0 > - && (! strict_memory_address_addr_space_p > - (GET_MODE (x), XEXP (reg_equiv_mem (regno), 0), > - MEM_ADDR_SPACE (reg_equiv_mem (regno))) > - || ! offsettable_memref_p (reg_equiv_mem (regno)) ^^^ here > - || num_not_at_initial_offset)))) to fail, which should cause find_reloads_subreg_address to get called. Why is that not happening for you? Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com