Hi, On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Now that we do have the problem, we can't fix it without an ARM port ABI > change, which is undesirable, so we may have to fix it with a MI change. What's the ABI implication of fixing the inconsistency? > There were two MI changes suggested, one was fixing the out-of-ssa pass > to handle SUBREG_PROMOTED_P promotions. The other was to disallow > creating PHI nodes between parms and locals. I haven't had a chance to > try implementing the second one yet; I hope to work on that today. Don't bother with the latter, it doesn't have a chance of being accepted. If the terrible hack in outof-ssa really will be necessary (and I really really hope it won't) then I think I prefer the approach you partly tried in comment #12 of PR 65932 already. Let partition_to_pseudo[] refer to the promoted subreg and deal with that situation in emit_partition_copy; I'd then hope that the unsignedsrcp parameter could go away (unfortunately the sizeexp will have to stay). Ciao, Michael.
