From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73839 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2015 03:04:53 -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 73826 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2015 03:04:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_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, 30 Sep 2015 03:04:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 456F491E8F; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.3.112.10] ([10.3.112.10]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8U34l0H017231; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:04:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert SPARC to LRA To: Jeff Law , Segher Boessenkool References: <20150908.214115.1585933992134500164.davem@davemloft.net> <2D64499C-B66A-4873-BDB9-C6190FF539FE@comcast.net> <56089802.7010803@redhat.com> <560993B9.70105@redhat.com> <20150928202838.GA1401@gate.crashing.org> <560A9583.5070102@redhat.com> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Vladimir Makarov Message-ID: <560B514F.2070000@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:06:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <560A9583.5070102@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg02294.txt.bz2 On 09/29/2015 09:43 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > FWIW, I tried to build a simple cc0 target with LRA (v850-elf), but it > fell over pretty early. Essentially LRA doesn't seem to be cc0-aware > in split_reg as ultimately inserted something between a cc0-setter and > cc0-user. Oops. > Yes, that is true. When I started to work on LRA, I decided to ignore cc0 first. But since then, no progress was made on this front. I guess the support of cc0 can be implemented for reasonable amount of time. It is just a priority issue. I still have a lot PRs for the targets already using LRA.