From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63991 invoked by alias); 11 May 2015 20:30:25 -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 63981 invoked by uid 89); 11 May 2015 20:30:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 11 May 2015 20:30:22 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t4BKUBPO006777; Mon, 11 May 2015 15:30:11 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id t4BKUAwk006776; Mon, 11 May 2015 15:30:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 20:30:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Matthew Fortune Cc: Jeff Law , Steve Ellcey , "Kumar, Venkataramanan" , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org" , clm , John David Anglin Subject: Re: [RFC]: Remove Mem/address type assumption in combiner Message-ID: <20150511203009.GJ2521@gate.crashing.org> References: <7794A52CE4D579448B959EED7DD0A4723DCF68C1@satlexdag06.amd.com> <1431366602.14613.210.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <20150511182215.GF2521@gate.crashing.org> <1431373475.14613.212.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <555106F9.1020408@redhat.com> <5551072D.90800@redhat.com> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235321052437@LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235321052437@LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg01005.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:16:41PM +0000, Matthew Fortune wrote: > Does this patch effectively change the canonicalization rules? The following > Still exists in md.texi: > > @item > Within address computations (i.e., inside @code{mem}), a left shift is > converted into the appropriate multiplication by a power of two. No, it makes combine *follow* those rules -- this isn't inside a MEM. Segher