Fix PR 56077
Fri Feb 22 14:21:00 GMT 2013
On 02/22/13 07:16, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> You must be referring to the PR audit trail, right? I'm sure the bug reporter
> is mistaken that the stores are coalesced. What happens is that two of the
> three stores are moved up above the first asm, but because of how the awk
> script cuts the generated code, that is not observed.
Thanks. That makes a lot more sense.
>> Also, if we go forward with your patch, the comment related to this
>> conditional needs to be fixed -- it still says "Flush pending lists on jumps,
>> ...", but you've removed the jump check.
> Yeah, I'd say the comment is confusing both before and after the patch.
> Perhaps something like "Don't flush pending lists on speculation checks during
> selective scheduling" would be better.
Sounds good. Approved with that comment change.
More information about the Gcc-patches