This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A reload inheritance bug
- From: Mark Shinwell <shinwell at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:34:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: A reload inheritance bug
- References: <4648D8E1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <464987DA.email@example.com> <4649B275.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4652C64F.email@example.com> <465D78BD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46653E36.email@example.com> <466546C0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46654BDC.email@example.com> <4665543B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46655DC0.email@example.com> <466D0640.firstname.lastname@example.org> <466D69A9.email@example.com>
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Mark Shinwell wrote:
Do you think it should be the case that, at the point below, _any_ reload
with reg_rtx corresponding to a hard register should have the relevant
bit set in reload_spill_index?
I think so. I'm attaching a patch below. It appears to have no effect
on all code I've tried - does it fix your test case?
As noted before, this does fix the test case; I've now regtested it
on arm-none-eabi and there are no regressions. Do you want to take
care of applying it?