This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 01:36:27 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
- References: <17318.64145.41810.488474@zapata.pink> <m38xuglvrk.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <17319.3754.844531.876599@zapata.pink> <m34q54lot9.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <20051220073124.GA3576@redhat.com> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0601022227260.18683@dair.pair.com> <m33bk654uq.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I wouldn't expect to see any insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set before
> the prologue and epilogue are threaded in the flow2 pass. So combine
> shouldn't be an issue. And flow2 calls split_all_insns before the
> prologue and epilogue insns are threaded. When did the bogus split
> happen?
Huh, I emitted RTL prologue insns that were themselves
candidates for splitting (without any transformations).
I thought the same could happen for RTL transformations but it
seems peephole2 (and stack adjustments, but that's not
applicable to CRIS) was the only "real" candidate.
So, there's just an undocumented implicit requirement that
nothing emitted as RTL prologue (accidentally) matches a
splitter.
brgds, H-P