This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [avr] fno-caller-saves and regression tests

On 09.08.2016 07:33, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Hi Johann,

  Turning off -fcaller-saves for AVR makes the testcase I had for PR 71873
  pass unless I explicitly add -fcaller-saves to force the compiler to
  generate the triggering insn patterns.

  Wonder if we should modify the existing test cases in to
  be tested both ways (with and without caller saves)? At least the
  register allocation related ones probably won't catch regressions.


Testing both way makes only sense, IMO, if we actually "support" -fcaller-saves and if someone is going to fix reg alloc bugs.

The current live cycle of such ICEs is:

1) Someone reports register alloc ICE to bugzilla

2) It's not fixed because there are no resources

3) Bug is closed because life cycle of gcc branch ends

4) Problem pops up on newer branch and with different test case

5) goto 1)

I am already very happy if RA ICEs for default options get fixed.
Many thanks to you for digging into that difficult matter.

Re you original question, I am fine with whatever approach the one that gets involved with these RA bugs will prefer.

From my experience, caller-saves degrades code quality and increases probability of ICEs from reload. If -fcaller-saves makes it easier for you to hunt or monitor respective bugs, feel free to adjust the test cases. Or you might consider adding -fcaller-saves variant(s) to your torture options.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]