On 10/11/18 1:23 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > On 10/11/18 1:18 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: >> Ok, after working in gdb, I see that the PA-RISC port still uses reload >> and not LRA, but it too seems to have the same issue of reusing input >> regs that have REG_DEAD notes, so the question still stands. It's just >> that whatever fix we come up with will have to be to both LRA and reload. > > On second thought, I'm thinking we should just leave reload alone and > only fix this in LRA. That means we'd have to disable the reg copy > handling when not using LRA though, which might be another reason to > get targets to move to LRA? I've verified the following patch gets > the PA-RISC test case to pass again. Thoughts? > > If ok, I still have to dig into the fails we're seeing on LRA targets. Hmmm. Interesting. I wonder if all the failing targets were reload targets..... If so, this may be the way forward -- I certainly don't want to spend much, if any, time fixing reload.
I'm in the middle of something, but will try to look at each of the failing targets and confirm they use reload by default. Jeff
