From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9520 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2015 22:39:00 -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 9500 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2015 22:38:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pa0-f51.google.com Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f51.google.com) (209.85.220.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:38:57 +0000 Received: by padhx2 with SMTP id hx2so57474735pad.1 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:38:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nhTL+TN2XAoS/M2ZCK6tIYacABZJfs9kB+BZEObZNAQ=; b=GqhxpVXuJnQRR1FA1BgEiurfzNTC4MGE4wlTlXaLyX+jMs7iZuii5HoI7gr5QuJUyC JHTRGNbA4iBt9LcN9suPS4m4b92IM1ws1+uKsFp2Q5MdQsDYFFh9HuWg7Rx/Ye+ucqtN +MixYXkQ16txouf3qof9oMxqVYJHyHFCjoxOR21EwEMIdo3uQdjC+kMl49wK+usxcd/s E81ErvgL8etT4lBel6YdQCi/fmD4Qma0lV+eeVJAq02b7Yty6FY7ZLsQnTIT28UlirX3 fYRHkTpR1J4adr+9wM/OclIJsdaMrofcqgzq80ROl7TUnxUgzLKJ79G5QUf0qPbsKDS6 7fqg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAPzsZ2bLyz4915a7iwJdH4dRbuAJN+unysl0rFchuVcPjlMsDibk9+tT+A5TIJaegmas2 X-Received: by 10.66.181.234 with SMTP id dz10mr5061153pac.51.1446676734780; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:80a3:c890:4c00:90a9:6a53:7aad? ([2602:306:80a3:c890:4c00:90a9:6a53:7aad]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id yh3sm3914384pbb.82.2015.11.04.14.38.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:38:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR67305, tighten neon_vector_mem_operand on eliminable registers To: Jiong Wang , GCC Patches References: <5639D3A8.5040606@foss.arm.com> Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan , Kyrill Tkachov From: Jim Wilson X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <563A88FE.7050409@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5639D3A8.5040606@foss.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 On 11/04/2015 01:45 AM, Jiong Wang wrote: > So as Jim Wilson commented on the bugzilla, instead of "return !strict", > we need to only do the check if strict be true, and only does rejection > which means return FALSE, for all other cases, we need to go through > those normal checks below. I was just about to submit the same patch myself; my testsuite run finished last night. This testsuite run was with a toolchain configured "--with-arch=armv8-a --with-fpu=neon-fp-armv8 --with-float=hard --with-mode=thumb --enable-languages=c,c++". I see 10 fewer unexpected failures on the gcc testsuite with the patch, and no changes to the other testsuite results. Jim