Just committed to 4.9 branch, 4.8 to follow once regression testsuite for 4.8 backport finishes running (backport was done quite some time ago now).
Best regards, Thomas > -----Original Message----- > From: Ramana Radhakrishnan [mailto:ramana....@googlemail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:07 PM > To: Thomas Preud'homme > Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan; gcc-patches; Richard Biener; Jakub Jelinek > Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Fix PR64453: live high register not saved in > function prolog with -Os > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Thomas Preud'homme > <thomas.preudho...@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Ramana, > > > >> From: Ramana Radhakrishnan [mailto:ramana....@googlemail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 7:21 PM > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Thomas Preud'homme > >> <thomas.preudho...@arm.com> wrote: > >> > When compiling for size, live high registers are not saved in function > >> prolog in ARM backend in Thumb mode. The problem comes from > >> arm_conditional_register_usage setting call_used_regs for all high > >> register to avoid them being allocated. However, this cause prolog to > not > >> save these register even if they are used. This patch marks high > registers > >> as really needing to be saved in prolog if live, no matter what is the > >> content of call_used_regs. > >> > > >> > ChangeLog entries are as follows: > >> > > >> > gcc/ChangeLog > >> > > >> > 2015-01-12 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com > >> > > >> > PR target/64453 > >> > * config/arm/arm.c (callee_saved_reg_p): Define. > >> > (arm_compute_save_reg0_reg12_mask): Use > callee_saved_reg_p > >> to check if > >> > register is callee saved instead of !call_used_regs[reg]. > >> > (thumb1_compute_save_reg_mask): Likewise. > >> > > >> > > >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > >> > > >> > 2014-12-31 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com > >> > > >> > * gcc.target/arm/pr64453.c: New. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> OK. > >> > >> Ramana > > > > The patch applies cleanly on GCC 4.8 and 4.9 branches when omitting > the cosmetic change > > in arm_conditional_register_usage () which was unintended. I > compiled an arm-none-eabi > > GCC cross compiler and ran the testsuite for both backport without any > regression. > > > > Is this ok for the 4.8 and 4.9 branches? > > > > OK for the branches if no RM objects in 24 hours. > > Ramana > > > Best regards, > > > > Thomas > > > > > >
