This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH] [gcc, combine] Backport to GCC 5.0 branch "PR46164: Don't combine the insns if a volatile register is contained".
- From: "Hale Wang" <hale dot wang at arm dot com>
- To: "'Segher Boessenkool'" <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: <law at redhat dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Richard Sandiford" <Richard dot Sandiford at arm dot com>, "'Terry Guo'" <flameroc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:33:31 +0800
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] [gcc, combine] Backport to GCC 5.0 branch "PR46164: Don't combine the insns if a volatile register is contained".
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <002d01d08e0a$cc6829a0$65387ce0$ at arm dot com> <20150514132922 dot GD1081 at gate dot crashing dot org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Segher Boessenkool [mailto:segher@kernel.crashing.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:29 PM
> To: Hale Wang
> Cc: law@redhat.com; GCC Patches; Richard Sandiford; 'Terry Guo'
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gcc, combine] Backport to GCC 5.0 branch "PR46164:
> Don't combine the insns if a volatile register is contained".
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:56:54PM +0800, Hale Wang wrote:
> > > >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > >> 2015-04-22 Hale Wang <hale.wang@arm.com>
> > > >> Terry Guo <terry.guo@arm.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> PR rtl-optimization/64818
> > > >> * combine.c (can_combine_p): Don't combine user-specified
> > > >> register
> > > if
> > > >> it is in an asm input.
> > > >>
> > > >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > >> 2015-04-22 Hale Wang <hale.wang@arm.com>
> > > >> Terry Guo <terry.guo@arm.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> PR rtl-optimization/64818
> > > >> * gcc.target/arm/pr64818.c: New.
>
> > This patch applies cleanly on GCC 5.0 branch. Bootstrap and regression
test
> are OK for X86_64.
> >
> > Can we backport this patch to GCC 5.0 branch?
>
> It should be perfectly safe, and it's a pretty nasty bug. But it is
technically not
> a regression (or is it?), so I'll defer to the release managers.
>
Yes, I agree it is not a regression.
>
> Segher