This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Initial shrink-wrapping patch
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:03:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: Initial shrink-wrapping patch
- References: <4E5E7342.9050103@codesourcery.com> <g462lcbc22.fsf@richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <4E6E9857.50600@t-online.de> <g4ehzklu0r.fsf@richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <4E6F37D9.9000108@t-online.de> <g4pqj4k702.fsf@richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <4E6F4B90.2050408@codesourcery.com> <g4hb4gk2xa.fsf@richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <4E6F786E.6080407@codesourcery.com> <4E712FD6.5030109@redhat.com> <4E8239ED.9020004@codesourcery.com> <4E85F395.3030006@redhat.com> <4E8B8469.2090605@codesourcery.com> <4E8B88E7.3090107@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc2VePBTofTZ+N6Ck_fpzgXdz7N8zncbtgX2OGnW87_7uA@mail.gmail.com> <4E8C7ED0.3090705@codesourcery.com>
HJ found some more maybe_record_trace_start failures. In one case I
debugged, we have
(insn/f 31 0 32 (parallel [
(set (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
(plus:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
(const_int 8 [0x8])))
(clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
(clobber (mem:BLK (scratch) [0 A8]))
]) -1
(expr_list:REG_CFA_ADJUST_CFA (set (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
(plus:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)
(const_int 8 [0x8])))
(nil)))
The insn pattern is later changed by csa to adjust by 24, and the note
is left untouched; that seems to be triggering the problem.
Richard, is there a reason to use REG_CFA_ADJUST_CFA rather than
REG_CFA_DEF_CFA? If no, I'll just try to fix i386.c not to emit the former.
Bernd