https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916
Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[5 regression] ira.c |ira.c update_equiv_regs
|update_equiv_regs patch |patch causes
|causes |gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/ar
|gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/ar |m/pr43920-2.c regression
|m/pr43920-2.c regression |
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Removing the regression marker.
This testcase depended in incorrect behaviour of update_equiv_regs. So it's
clearly a missed optimization, it does not qualify as a regression IMO.
In particular note that r110 can have two values (0 or -1) thus creating a
REG_EQUIV note for r110 anywhere is wrong.
