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: [atom]: PATCH: reg_mentioned_by_mem_p with DF

From: "Ye, Joey" <joey dot ye at intel dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "Lu, Hongjiu" <hongjiu dot lu at intel dot com>, "Guo, Xuepeng" <xuepeng dot guo at intel dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:31:19 +0800
Subject: RE: [atom]: PATCH: reg_mentioned_by_mem_p with DF
References: <F2363DE71B5050498545B523673042DE01A5336C3D@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20090330070754.GF4831@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>

Jakub Jelinek wrote on Monday, March 30, 2009 3:08 PM:
>> Reimplement reg_mentioned_by_mem_p with DF, after Steven's
>> comments.
>> 
>> Thanks - Joey
>> 
>>     * rtlanal.c (reg_mentioned_by_mem_p_1): Removed.
>>     (reg_mentioned_by_mem_p): Re-implement with DF.
>
> As it is used by insn splitter and splitting can also happen during final
> when DF isn't available, I don't see how this is a safe thing to do.
Good question. What's the live range of DF? If its live range can't cover
splitter's, it means this checkin has to be reverted?

Thanks - Joey

References:
- [atom]: PATCH: reg_mentioned_by_mem_p with DF
  - From: Ye, Joey
- Re: [atom]: PATCH: reg_mentioned_by_mem_p with DF
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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