This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: CFG branch merge 8 - SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES versus profiling
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-pdo at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz, patches at x86-64 dot org
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:11:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: CFG branch merge 8 - SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES versus profiling
- References: <20020228203234.GC20347@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020228153304.A30569@redhat.com>
> > ! /* Now, NEXT_INSERT_AFTER may be an instruction that uses the
> > ! return value. However, it could also be something else,
> > ! like a CODE_LABEL, so check that the code is INSN. */
> > ! if (next_insert_after
> > ! && GET_CODE (next_insert_after) == INSN
> > ! && reg_referenced_p (return_reg,
> > ! PATTERN (next_insert_after)))
> > ! insert_after = next_insert_after;
>
> I think all this should use keep_with_call_p and not be
Aarghh. sure. Of course :) I already done that when
merging in the Janis patch to cfg-branch and obviusly
forgot the commit..
I probably can prepare updated patch at end of weekend.
Honza
> dependent on SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES. As can be seen with
> ia64 when you put stuff before the gp reload.
>
>
> r~