This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED

From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Berlin, Daniel" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Seongbae Park <seongbae dot park at gmail dot com>, richard at codesourcery dot com, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:32:46 +0100
Subject: Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED
References: <455922F5.1080907@naturalbridge.com> <87fyckyf2h.fsf@talisman.home> <455B382B.4000007@naturalbridge.com> <1163608156.7128.70.camel@celery.andrew.com>

Andrew Pinski wrote:

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 10:54 -0500, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The conversation was made on or right before sept 21.  Maybe danny can
find the irc log.
I can remember part of the conversation.  The issue is that a plain
unspec without a set is always un-deletable instruction.
So:
(insn (unspec (xxxx) )
Should not be deleted even if it does not set anything.

... but, unlike unspec_volatile, is not considered to use and clobber all hard registers and all of memory.

Paolo

References:
- [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: [dataflow]: PATCH COMMITTED
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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