This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A reload inheritance bug
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- To: Mark Shinwell <shinwell at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:43:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: A reload inheritance bug
- References: <4648D8E1.2070307@codesourcery.com> <464987DA.8070306@t-online.de> <4649B275.1020707@codesourcery.com> <4652C64F.8080409@t-online.de> <465D78BD.60905@codesourcery.com> <46653E36.5030408@t-online.de> <466546C0.6050603@codesourcery.com> <46654BDC.5010809@t-online.de> <4665543B.9000807@codesourcery.com> <46655DC0.4050601@t-online.de> <466D0640.30605@codesourcery.com> <466D69A9.50808@t-online.de> <468DF08A.3080808@codesourcery.com>
Mark Shinwell wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Mark Shinwell wrote:
Do you think it should be the case that, at the point below, _any_
reload
with reg_rtx corresponding to a hard register should have the relevant
bit set in reload_spill_index?
I think so. I'm attaching a patch below. It appears to have no effect
on all code I've tried - does it fix your test case?
As noted before, this does fix the test case; I've now regtested it
on arm-none-eabi and there are no regressions. Do you want to take
care of applying it?
Thanks for testing. I bootstrapped and regression tested it on
i686-linux and committed it as 126415. I'll put it on the 4.2 and 4.1
branches in a week or so.
Bernd
--
This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
Analog Devices GmbH Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6 80807 Muenchen
Sitz der Gesellschaft Muenchen, Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368
Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, William A. Martin, Margaret Seif