This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Don't assume MEM_SIZE is always set in rs6000 adjacent_mem_locations (PR target/34225)
I assumed because the testcase involved stack_tie that all of the
failures involved stack_tie and the common parts of the compiler uniformly
established MEM attrs. I don't disagree with current patch to protect the
test, but I think the patch may be incomplete.
Because stack_tie is not a real instructon, I thought that the
size could be the mode size. Also, because stack_tie it is not a real
instruction, I expected that is_store_insn() should ignore it -- like all
of the other byproducts of the GCC IR that unfortunately are treated as