This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: cache enabled attribute by insn code
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>
- To: Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:37:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFA: cache enabled attribute by insn code
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87k39gkgq0 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <537B95E9 dot 1010203 at redhat dot com> <87iop0i13e dot fsf at talisman dot default> <537F9126 dot 5080904 at redhat dot com> <CAKdteOaYVgFZg5aUWUj9K7LPgmiGoT3iFiiaVbc-eSUKv22HCQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: ramrad01 at arm dot com
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Christophe Lyon
> Commits 210964 and 210965 for this patch have broken GCC build on arm* targets.
> For instance on target arm-none-linux-gnueabi, when creating
> unwind-arm.o, I can see:
> 0x8e3bcd process_insn_for_elimination
> 0x8e3bcd lra_eliminate(bool, bool)
> 0x8dd753 lra_constraints(bool)
> 0x8cdc1a lra(_IO_FILE*)
> 0x8911f8 do_reload
> 0x891508 execute
> Please submit a full bug report,
Can you file a proper bug report with a pre-processed file -
information about configury options etc. to show what the issue is.
> On 23 May 2014 20:19, Jeff Law <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 05/20/14 15:36, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>> This is OK for the trunk (referring to the follow-up message which fixed
>>> Sorry, while working on the follow-up LRA patch, I realised I hadn't
>>> accounted for target changes that happen directly via target_reinit
>>> (rather than SWITCHABLE_TARGETS) and cases where reinit_regs is called
>>> to change just the register information. Both could potentially affect
>>> the enabled attribute.
>>> This version adds a recog_init function that clears the data if necessary.
>>> There are no other changes from first time. Is this still OK?
>> Thanks for letting me know, that's a minor twiddle -- the patch is still OK.