On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 10:29:40AM -0500, Pat Haugen wrote: > On 8/6/21 10:02 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> - if (GET_CODE (pat) == SET) > >> + if (GET_CODE (pat) == SET && REG_P (SET_DEST (pat))) > >> return find_mem_ref (SET_SRC (pat), load_mem); > > > > So this now falls through if it is a SET of something else than a reg. > > Is that intentional? If so, this should be in the changelog. > > > > Falling through eventually resulted in returning false, but no, wasn't really > intentional to change the logic that way. I'll fix up both places to look > like the following and resubmit. > > if (GET_CODE (pat)== SET) > if (REG_P (SET_DEST (pat))) > return find_mem_ref (SET_SRC (pat), load_mem); > else > return false;
Well, that isn't quiet it either, no? It returns false for all stores then? Segher
