From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-289732-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 32434 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2011 18:58:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 32418 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2011 18:58:32 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ew0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:58:18 +0000
Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so1314406ewy.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.23.92 with SMTP id q28mr1849532ebb.80.1303066697201; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.27.144 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimkgPyqGsrE4a_06TEbwYgzG=C1_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DA6CB8E.1040707@gjlay.de> <BANLkTinLvWm0fDyQrtvxv32EXN0soWa0wQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DA72CC6.5030001@gjlay.de> <BANLkTimQRSZTZTzSKqgb6q_72_uUtyn1Mw@mail.gmail.com> <4DA880F6.4070109@gjlay.de> <BANLkTimkgPyqGsrE4a_06TEbwYgzG=C1_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Denis Chertykov <chertykov@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:43:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTikhvvf3U93U-jc1V2WC=6+DD+5hyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch,AVR]: FIX ICE in optabs due to bad rotate expander.
To: Georg-Johann Lay <avr@gjlay.de>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Anatoly Sokolov <aesok@post.ru>, 	Eric Weddington <eric.weddington@atmel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg01336.txt.bz2

2011/4/17 Denis Chertykov <chertykov@gmail.com>:
> 2011/4/15 Georg-Johann Lay <avr@gjlay.de>:
>> Finally, I exposed alternative #3 of the insns to the register
>> allocator, because it is not possible to distinguish between
>> overlapping or non-overlapping regs, and #3 does not need a scratch.
>>
>> Ran C-testsuite with no regressions.
>
> Are you encountered any difference in code size ?

I'm ask about code size because the IRA pass isn't work with
`scratch:MODE' at all.
This lead to bad/wrong register allocation in IRA pass.
The reload pass will correct such a wrong allocation, but reload can't
generate optimal code. (reload generate correct code).
Because of that, may be you right and may be better to have
(clobber (match_operand....)) instead of (clobber (match_scratch...)).

Denis.