From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-304836-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19444 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2011 12:47:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 19430 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2011 12:47:34 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:47:13 +0000
Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com)	by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp 	id 1RG94a-0007TN-SU from Bernd_Schmidt@mentor.com ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:47:13 -0700
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);	 Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:47:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4E9D754A.4040804@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:24:00 -0000
From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110920 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
CC: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,  Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [ARM] Fix PR49641
References: <4E1610ED.2070108@codesourcery.com> <4E1DA5C4.60806@arm.com> <4E983996.4030908@codesourcery.com> <4E9C2586.7080804@arm.com> <4E9D6EC0.10908@codesourcery.com> <4E9D7155.7050905@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E9D7155.7050905@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg01634.txt.bz2

On 10/18/11 14:30, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Well, if that's the case why do we need to test for Thumb1 at all?  And
> why do we only enable write-back for Thumb1?  other ISA variants can
> also do that (I know that Thumb1 requires write-back, but it's
> optionally available for the other ISA flavours).

We're not trying to generate a writeback sequence with our peepholes.
The problem is that on Thumb, that's the only instruction available, and
we want to make use of it if possible (i.e. register dead afterwards etc.).


Bernd