This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/34852] [4.3 Regression] Revision 131576 miscompiled 178.galgel
- From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 21 Jan 2008 09:43:42 -0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/34852] [4.3 Regression] Revision 131576 miscompiled 178.galgel
- References: <bug-34852-682@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-21 09:43 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 131576 miscompiled 178.galgel
>
>
> ------- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-20 16:43 -------
> Oops. This one
Yes, it does make sense. I must've missed it, since I was updating
similar cases all around the file.
It should not be code correcntess issue, just code quality - we still
rely on REG_N_CALLS when asking if register crosses a call, just use
frequency to drive decision on profitability of using caller save
register.
Thanks! I will also look into the two regressions this afternoon unless
you beat me.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34852