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: PowerPC64 non-delegitimized unspecs

From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:47:56 +0930
Subject: Re: PowerPC64 non-delegitimized unspecs
References: <20110406123611.GS19002@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20110406124549.GJ17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 02:45:49PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:06:11PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I've noticed a number of tests fail on mainline with complaints about
> > non-delegitimized UNSPECs.  The reason why rs6000_delegitimze_address
> > isn't working is that our insn matching doesn't allow a stack slot in
> > place of the REG.  I could have expanded the condition to include
> > stack slots, but it seems silly to complicate the code like that.
> > Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-linux.  OK for mainline
> > and 4.6?
> 
> Won't that lead to invalid debug info?
> I mean, can't it happen that the reg in question is some register
> initialized from TOC_REGISTER plus some offset?

I don't think we do that on powerpc64.  Your question made me go back
to look at the failing tests, and I see that with current mainline the
tests no longer fail!  I guess for now I'd better retract the patch.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

References:
- PowerPC64 non-delegitimized unspecs
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: PowerPC64 non-delegitimized unspecs
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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