On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 08:42 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> On 29.01.2016 16:47 Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. What is the problem with that? If we have (plus sfp const_int) at
>>> any point before reload, we can check whether that offset is inside
>>> frame_size. If it isn't or if the offset isn't known, it could trap.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Usually we have "if (x==1234) { read MEM[FP+x]; }", so wo don't know,
>> and then after reload: "if (x==1234) { read MEM[SP+x+sp_fp_offset]; }"
>> but wait, in the if statement we know, that x==1234, so everything
>> turns in one magic constant, and we have a totally new constant offset
>> from the SP register "if (x==1234) { read MEM[SP+1234+sp_fp_offset]; }".
>> Now if rtx_addr_can_trap_p(MEM[SP+1234+sp_fp_offset]) says it cannot
>> trap we think we do not need the if at all => BANG.
>
>
> What are you trying to say here? As far as I can tell this isn't a problem
> with my proposed solution (set MEM_NOTRAP_P for valid SFP+x offsets).What prevents motion of those across a stack adjustment (thus a place they are _not_ valid?) Richard. > > Bernd
