From: Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net>
To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
Cc: John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:44:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2B3A4EAB-D69E-4714-8FC4-C25E36B07BFF@comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df260cfa-b749-063d-274b-f48d37450d47@redhat.com>
> On Aug 8, 2019, at 12:25 PM, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019-08-04 3:18 p.m., John Darrington wrote:
>> I'm trying to write a back-end for an architecture (s12z - the ISA you can
>> download from [1]). This arch accepts indirect memory addresses. That is to
>> say, those of the form (mem (mem (...))) and although my TARGET_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS
>> function returns true for such addresses, LRA insists on reloading them out of
>> existence.
>> ...
> The old reload (reload[1].c) supports such addressing. As modern mainstream architectures have no this kind of addressing, it was not implemented in LRA.
Is LRA only intended for "modern mainstream architectures"?
If yes, why is the old reload being deprecated? You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to obsolete all "not modern mainstream architectures" in GCC, it doesn't make sense to get rid of core functionality used by those architectures.
Indirect addressing is a key feature in size-optimized code.
paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-08 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-04 19:18 John Darrington
2019-08-08 16:25 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-08 16:44 ` Paul Koning [this message]
2019-08-08 17:21 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-08 17:25 ` Paul Koning
2019-08-08 19:09 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-08 17:30 ` Paul Koning
2019-08-08 19:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-08 19:57 ` Jeff Law
2019-08-09 8:14 ` John Darrington
2019-08-09 14:17 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-09 14:23 ` Paul Koning
2019-08-10 6:10 ` John Darrington
2019-08-10 16:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-09 16:07 ` Jeff Law
2019-08-09 17:34 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-10 6:06 ` John Darrington
2019-08-10 16:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-12 6:47 ` John Darrington
2019-08-12 8:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-12 13:35 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-15 16:29 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-15 16:38 ` Richard Biener
2019-08-15 17:41 ` John Darrington
2019-08-15 18:30 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-15 21:22 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-15 17:36 ` John Darrington
2019-08-15 18:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-16 11:24 ` Special Memory Constraint [was Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra] John Darrington
2019-08-16 14:50 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-19 7:36 ` John Darrington
2019-08-19 13:14 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-19 15:07 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 18:06 ` John Darrington
2019-08-20 6:56 ` Richard Biener
2019-08-20 7:07 ` John Darrington
2019-08-20 7:30 ` Richard Biener
2019-08-08 18:46 ` Indirect memory addresses vs. lra Vladimir Makarov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2B3A4EAB-D69E-4714-8FC4-C25E36B07BFF@comcast.net \
--to=paulkoning@comcast.net \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=john@darrington.wattle.id.au \
--cc=vmakarov@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).