On 02/02/15 08:59, Alex Velenko wrote:
On 11/10/14 13:44, Felix Yang wrote:
Hello Jeff,
I see that you have improved the RTL typesafety issue for ira.c,
so I rebased this patch
on the latest trunk and change to use the new list walking
interface.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-SUSE-Linux and make check regression tested.
OK for trunk?
Hi Felix,
I believe your patch causes a regression for arm-none-eabi.
FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c object-size text <= 54
FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c scan-assembler-times pop 2
This happens because your patch stops reuse of code for
" return -1;" statements in pr43920-2.c.
As far as I investigated, your patch prevents adding "(expr_list (-1)
(nil)" in ira pass, which prevents jump2 optimization from happening.
So before, in ira pass I could see:
"(insn 9 53 34 8 (set (reg:SI 110 [ D.4934 ])
(const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff]))
/work/fsf-trunk-ref-2/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c:20 613
{*thumb2_movsi_vfp}
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])
(nil)))"
But with your patch I get
"(insn 9 53 34 8 (set (reg:SI 110 [ D.5322 ])
(const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff]))
/work/fsf-trunk-2/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c:20
615 {*thumb2_movsi_vfp}
(nil))"
This causes a code generation regression and needs to be fixed.
Kind regards,
We'd need to see the full dumps. In particular is reg110 set anywhere
else? If so then the change is doing precisely what it should be doing
and the test needs to be updated to handle the different code we generate.
Jeff
