public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>,
	dje.gcc@gmail.com, richard.sandiford@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PR100106] Reject unaligned subregs when strict alignment is required
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 08:50:23 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220505135023.GB25951@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mptk0b0csva.fsf@arm.com>

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 08:59:21AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> I know this is the best being the enemy of the good, but given
> that we're at the start of stage 1, would it be feasible to try
> to get rid of (subreg (mem)) altogether for GCC 13?

Yes please!

> We could do
> it target-by-target, with a target macro (yes, macro :-)) that opts
> in to keeping the existing behaviour.  (subreg (mem)) would then be
> unconditionally invalid when the macro isn't defined.  (Even in
> debug expressions, since those ought to narrow to a mem anyway.)

Or we can simply threaten to drop all unconverted targets.  That way at
least there is a *chance* (a slim chance, but still) that the conversion
will ever be finished.

Paradoxical subregs of memory are already not allowed on targets with
instruction scheduling, btw.


Segher

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-05 13:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-05  6:52 Alexandre Oliva
2022-05-05  7:59 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-05-05 13:50   ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2022-05-06 10:57     ` [PATCH v2 2/2] " Alexandre Oliva
2022-05-09  8:09       ` Richard Sandiford
2022-05-05 14:33 ` [PATCH] " Segher Boessenkool
2022-05-06  2:41   ` [PATCH v2] " Alexandre Oliva
2022-07-09 17:14     ` Jeff Law
2023-05-24  5:39     ` Alexandre Oliva
2023-05-24  9:04       ` Richard Biener
2022-05-06 18:04 ` [PATCH] " Vladimir Makarov

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=20220505135023.GB25951@gate.crashing.org \
    --to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=oliva@adacore.com \
    --cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    /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).