This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:04:37 +0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-38644-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #51 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-09-26 08:04:37 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, rearnsha at arm dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
>
> --- Comment #48 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com> 2011-09-12 15:31:51 UTC ---
> On 12/09/11 16:18, law at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > A much simpler way to fix this is to emit a barrier just prior to
> > mucking around with stack pointer in the epilogue. That's how targets
> > have dealt with this exact issue for a couple decades.
>
> Simpler, but wrong. The compiler should not be generating unsafe code
> by default. The problem is in the mid-end and expecting every port to
> get this right in order to work-around a mid-end bug is just stupid
> stupid stupid.
>
> The mid end should not be scheduling around stack moves unless it has
> been explicitly told it is safe to do this. I don't understand why
> there is so much resistance to fixing the problem properly.
The middle-end does not treat stack moves specially, they are just
memory accesses. Extra dependences have to be modeled accordingly.
It's a hack to treat stack moves specially, not a proper fix.