This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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: PR middle-end/25121: [4.1/4.2 Regression] libgcj misscompilation? [Was Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P]

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:18:16 -0800
Subject: Re: PR middle-end/25121: [4.1/4.2 Regression] libgcj misscompilation? [Was Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P]
References: <17318.64145.41810.488474@zapata.pink> <m38xuglvrk.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <17319.3754.844531.876599@zapata.pink> <m34q54lot9.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <20051220073124.GA3576@redhat.com> <17319.60836.34444.488954@zapata.pink>

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:40:20AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> +	      /* Don't replace sequences with FRAME_RELATED_P insns.  */
> +	      if (try != NULL && match_len < frame_related_distance)

I think I'd rather that you manipulate peep2_current_count
than adding a new counter.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PR middle-end/25121: [4.1/4.2 Regression] libgcj misscompilation? [Was Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P]
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
  - From: Richard Henderson
- PR middle-end/25121: [4.1/4.2 Regression] libgcj misscompilation? [Was Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P]
  - From: Andrew Haley

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