From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71365 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2019 20:04:29 -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 71352 invoked by uid 89); 26 Oct 2019 20:04:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=wished, H*f:sk:ZwBwWJn, H*f:_627km, H*f:ViGdce7_KbiK X-HELO: us-smtp-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.120) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 20:04:27 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1572120266; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:openpgp:openpgp:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=H9X9PQy/sJ2UL1zlV1QNv9XXRrNiMJE6pxzOFn9tmnI=; b=Y1mREYsLDFHlsBp5ydjApC2ltZNW/Lw5A9zJgQ3dajjVF3oK3UUW5N+yIAFObqXNxQgNYB KogLD9fcUu7v1gisjy3OwxM7YoZXGLzZulSkcqBcuoTJ2zFGKzJ2O4k/1zA4YFX2CTgh2I X6Y24aHerDfHryv9OIdaai0xhT45qGQ= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-142-7U8fr0JcM_iKB2FfRw63bA-1; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 16:04:17 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EA46107AD25; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 20:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-8.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.8]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCBB60C57; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 20:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] RISC-V: Add shorten_memrefs pass To: Andrew Waterman Cc: Craig Blackmore , GCC Patches , Jim Wilson , Ofer Shinaar , Nidal.Faour@wdc.com, Kito Cheng References: <1572025151-22783-1-git-send-email-craig.blackmore@embecosm.com> <1572025151-22783-2-git-send-email-craig.blackmore@embecosm.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <66f754f0-66cb-320e-a256-9750b241e6cd@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 20:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg01906.txt.bz2 On 10/26/19 1:33 PM, Andrew Waterman wrote: > I don't know enough to say whether the legitimize_address hook is > sufficient for the intended purpose, but I am sure that RISC-V's > concerns are not unique: other GCC targets have to cope with > offset-size constraints that are coupled to register-allocation > constraints. Yup. I think every risc port in the 90s faces this problem. I always wished for a generic mechanism for ports to handle this problem. Regardless, it's probably worth investigating. jeff