Re: Recent changes to cse.c

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> writes:

> Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:
> 
>> David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>>>>>>>> "Mike Lerwill" writes:
>>> 
>>>Mike> Following the recent changes there is a problem with compiling cse.c for
>>>Mike> targets that define HAVE_cc0.
>>> 
>>>Mike> Specifically in the function set_live_p which uses insn which is not
>>>Mike> declared anywhere.
>>> 
>>> 	Okay, the clock has started.  If this is not fixed within 48
>>> hours, the patch which caused the problem is an automatic candidate to be
>>> reverted. 
>> 
>> Nope, the clock has not started yet - at least not in my
>> understanding.  Mark's note read:
>> 
>>     If a patch is committed which introduces a regression [1], on any
>>     target which the Steering Committee considers to be important [2],
>>     and the problem is reported to the original poster, and 48 hours
>>     pass without either the original poster or any other party
>> 
>> And where is this problem reported to the original poster?  It's not
>> even located yet.  IMO somebody first have to look into this and nail
>> down exactly which patch broke this - and then we have to see if it
>> breaks on an important target.
>> 
>> IMO the clock hasn't started *yet* but it might start after some people
>> have done a bit more analysis,
> 
> 
> This is caused by Richard Henderson's change.  However, since i
> noticed the failure in df.c, and came up with an incorrect patch
> (never applied), that eventually led to him making this change instead, I take
> all the blame. 
> There are about 8 small variations on how to fix this simply (depending on
> whether you want to just pass the insn in all the time, pass the insn
> and the set, etc), i just chose one of them. Some might feel a "better" fix would be
> to make insn_live_p do the check for CC0 machines instead, rather than
> pass the insn to set_live_p.
> 
> That said, the fix follows, non-bootstrapped and non-checked. My machine is
> having a bit of instability with a new kernel right now (It's also
> preventing a last make check so i can submit the store motion stuff), and i'm in
> the middle of some work i wanted to finish tonight, so someone
> else will have to perform a bootstrap and regression test on this
> patch before it can be checked in, if they want it done
> tonight. Sorry.

On what platform should the patch get tested?  The only target that
defines HAVE_cc0 seems to be 1750a.c

I offer to test it on either of i686-linux-gnu, ppc-linux-gnu or
alpha-linux-gnu and can start this in an hour if needed.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj