From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 803 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2014 11:26:42 -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 786 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2014 11:26:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:26:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1422BC9C34; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:26:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Jt5vboHqnCg; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:26:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E7A52BC9B1E; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:26:37 +0100 (CET) From: Eric Botcazou To: Richard Sandiford Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Alan Hayward , steven@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][rtlanal.c][BE][1/2] Fix vector load/stores to not use ld1/st1 Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <7355255.n9uUnY8azR@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.2 (Linux/3.1.10-1.29-desktop; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <87k31w96vq.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <87k31w96vq.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg01169.txt.bz2 > FWIW I agree this is the right approach, although I can't approve it. > The assert above is guarding code that deals with a very general case, > including some unusual combinations, so I don't think it would be a > good idea to try to remove it entirely. Yes, but the patch is a bit of kludge since it short-circuits the meat of the function: /* This should always pass, otherwise we don't know how to verify the constraint. These conditions may be relaxed but subreg_regno_offset would need to be redesigned. */ gcc_assert ((GET_MODE_SIZE (xmode) % GET_MODE_SIZE (ymode)) == 0); gcc_assert ((nregs_xmode % nregs_ymode) == 0); So what would it take to do things properly here, i.e. relax the conditions and adjust downstream? -- Eric Botcazou