Re: [PATCH] Fix store motion, revised PRE memory handling

[Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>]

law@redhat.com writes:

>   In message <87u20cesr3.fsf@cgsoftware.com>you write:
>  > Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
>  > 
>  > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:45:02AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > >> There is a consistent pattern of
>  > >> 
>  > >> if (load_killed_in_block_p (...)) <which is the way you want to handle i
>  > t>
>  > >> if (mem_*set_* crap) <which is what we used to do>
>  > > 
>  > > Wow, that's ... stunning.  I can only guess that there was
>  > > a botched cvs merge at some point in the past.
>  > > 
>  > >> This patch won't be committed until a proper fix is committed to df.c
>  > >> to fix the not marking all the right regs as def'd in call insns, but
>  > >> i'd still like it reviewed anyway, since that's just a simple matter
>  > >> to fix anyway.
>  > > 
>  > > I'm working on that.
>  > > 
>  > > This is a somewhat large-ish.  Would you split out the stupidity
>  > > killing into a separate patch?  It would make it easier to examine
>  > > the actual logic changes you've got in there.
>  > 
>  > Sure.
>  > I've attached the first patch (the stupidity killing).
>  > Speaking of logic changes, if we use !rtx_addr_varies_p when picking
>  > out candidate stores, do we still need to bother to see if the
>  > register operands change in various blocks?  If the address doesn't
>  > vary, doesn't it mean they couldn't be possibly changing in a
>  > meaningful way, because if they did, it would vary?
>  > 
>  > (We used to use rtx_varies_p, which was overkill, and would disqualify
>  > basically everything).
> Err, umm.  I don't see any indication this patch was bootstrap tested.
> 

I said the original, larger, patch, was bootstrapped on
powerpc-linux-gnu. When I split it, I bootstrapped it again on
powerpc-linux-gnu, again.  One would assume that if i bootstrapped the
larger patch, i would have bootstrapped the smaller broken up patches
too, before submitting them.
However, i'll explicitly note it in the future.


> jeff

-- 
"I bought one of those little glass ball things with the snow in
it.  You know, you turn it upside down then you turn it back and
it starts to snow.  I bought one, except this has a snow plow
that does it in rows.
"-Steven Wright