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: [EXTERNAL]Re: [RFC/PATCH v2][PR89245] Check REG_CALL_DECL note during the tail-merging


On 24.07.2019. 20:57, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 7/17/19 2:29 AM, Dragan Mladjenovic wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09.07.2019. 23:21, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 7/9/19 2:06 PM, Dragan Mladjenovic wrote:
>>>> This patch prevents merging of CALL instructions that that have different
>>>> REG_CALL_DECL notes attached to them.
>>>>
>>>> On most architectures this is not an important distinction. Usually instruction patterns
>>>> for calls to different functions reference different SYMBOL_REF-s, so they won't match.
>>>> On MIPS PIC calls get split into an got_load/*call_internal pair where the latter represents
>>>> indirect register call w/o SYMBOL_REF attached (until machine_reorg pass). The bugzilla issue
>>>> had such two internal_call-s merged despite the fact that they had different register usage
>>>> information assigned by ipa-ra.
>>>>
>>>> As per comment form Richard Sandiford, this version compares reg usage for both call
>>>> instruction instead of shallow comparing the notes. Tests updated accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> 2019-07-09  Dragan Mladjenovic  <dmladjenovic@wavecomp.com>
>>>>
>>>> 	* cfgcleanup.c (old_insns_match_p): Check if used hard regs set is equal
>>>> 	for both call instructions.
>>>>
>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> 2019-07-09  Dragan Mladjenovic  <dmladjenovic@wavecomp.com>
>>>>
>>>> 	* gcc.target/mips/cfgcleanup-jalr1.c: New test.
>>>> 	* gcc.target/mips/cfgcleanup-jalr2.c: New test.
>>>> 	* gcc.target/mips/cfgcleanup-jalr3.c: New test.
>>> THanks.  I've installed this on the trunk.
>>>
>>> jeff
>> Thanks. Can this be back-ported to active branches also. This issue
>> seems to be there > since gcc6 if not gcc5.
> I've asked Matthew to handle the backport.  I'm going to be on PTO the
> next couple weeks.
>
> jeff
>

Hi,

Sorry, I forgot to check up on this patch. Is it still ok for me to try 
to backport it to gcc 9 and gcc 8 branches?

Best regards,
Dragan

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