On 2015-07-25 16:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/25/2015 03:51 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >On 2015-07-25 15:06, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >>On 07/24/2015 04:34 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >>> ots->val_type = TEMP_VAL_CONST;
> >>> ots->val = ts->val;
> >>>+ if (IS_DEAD_ARG(1)) {
> >>>+ temp_dead(s, args[1]);
> >>>+ }
> >>
> >>Aren't we also missing
> >>
> >> if (NEED_SYNC_ARG(0)) {
> >> temp_sync(s, args[0], allocated_regs);
> >> }
> >>
> >>along this path?
> >
> >I don't think so, I guess it's covered by the first part of this
> >function:
> >
> >| if (((NEED_SYNC_ARG(0) || ots->fixed_reg) && ts->val_type !=
> >TEMP_VAL_REG)
> >| || ts->val_type == TEMP_VAL_MEM) {
> >
> >It means after this block, a value that need to be synced will always
> >be in a register, including in the constant case.
>
> Quite right. Therefore,
>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net>
>
> Do you want to go ahead and push this for 2.4?
Yes, I think we should push it for 2.4. Do you want to do the pull
request or should I do it?
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
