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: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:26:58 -0700
Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
References: <20101026211731.GA3834@intel.com> <AANLkTim_MiLrT3QKaM98mZaeCQ+Kf8HcJPxdz_mc+etd@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:17 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> I am checking in this patch since wrong instruction is generated for
>> my vzeroupper work.
>
> How is that obvious? ?Why does it generate the wrong instruction?
>
>


(define_insn "split_stack_return"
  [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "const_int_operand" "")]
                    UNSPEC_STACK_CHECK)]


vs.

(define_insn "avx_vzeroupper"
  [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand 0 "const_int_operand" "")]
                    UNSPECV_VZEROUPPER)]

I generate avx_zeroupper.  But it matches split_stack_return
since (int) UNSPEC_STACK_CHECK == (int) UNSPECV_VZEROUPPER.



-- 
H.J.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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