From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49248 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2015 19:11:08 -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 49238 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2015 19:11:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:11:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3TJAv1e007134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:10:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-143.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.143]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3TJAv4j009069; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:10:57 -0400 Message-ID: <55412CC1.1070401@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:23:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Segher Boessenkool , "Kumar, Venkataramanan" CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org" Subject: Re: [RFC]: Remove Mem/address type assumption in combiner References: <7794A52CE4D579448B959EED7DD0A4723DCE9F34@satlexdag06.amd.com> <20150429170335.GB21715@gate.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <20150429170335.GB21715@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01922.txt.bz2 On 04/29/2015 11:03 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Right. It would be good if you could find out for what targets it matters. > The thing is, if a target expects only the patterns as combine used to make > them, it will regress (as you've seen on aarch64); but it will regress > _silently_. Which isn't so nice. > >> But before that I wanted to check if the assumption in combiner, can simply be removed ? > > Seeing for what targets / patterns it makes a difference would tell us the > answer to that, too :-) Right. ANd that was one of the two general directions I recommended earlier this week ;-) 1. Figure out if this code still matters at all. 2. If the code still matters, accurately track if we're inside a MEM so that things canonicalize correctly. jeff