From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12712 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2010 09:51:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 12702 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2010 09:51:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:50:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 17045 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2010 09:50:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.102?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 23 Nov 2010 09:50:54 -0000 Message-ID: <4CEB8E76.5010303@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:06:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Botcazou CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [Ping] [patch 0/3] New macro PREFERRED_RENAME_CLASS References: <4CD24091.1020904@codesourcery.com> <201011201117.41929.ebotcazou@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <201011201117.41929.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-11/txt/msg02332.txt.bz2 On 11/20/2010 06:17 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> I sent three patches to add some logic in register-rename pass to prefer >> for different register classes. After some reviewers' review, three >> patches are updated and refactored like this, >> >> Patch 1: does everything except adding target hook >> preferred_rename_class . It is a separate improvement to register-rename. >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02197.html >> >> Patch 2: add target hook with doc, and use this hook in regrename.c >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg00029.html >> >> Patch 3: it is arm specific patch. >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01785.html >> >> Middle-End maintainers, >> could you review patch 1 and patch 2? > > Do you plan to follow up on this? I think it's a valuable improvement, worth > having in 4.6 and we are almost there implementation-wise. > Yes, I am still working on this, nearly done. Still need some time to test it on ARM. Sorry for the delayed reply. -- Yao (齐尧)