Re: Possible bug in cse.c affecting pre/post-modify mem access

2018-05-12 Thread A. Skrobov
> If we look in sel-sched-ir.c we see that it calls into hash_rtx_cb > (sigh, bad modularity). I'm not at all familiar with how the hashing > is used within the selective scheduler, so I can't really say what the > selective scheduler *should* be doing here. OK, I see. Now what do you think woul

Re: Possible bug in cse.c affecting pre/post-modify mem access

2018-05-12 Thread Richard Sandiford
"A. Skrobov" writes: >> If we look in sel-sched-ir.c we see that it calls into hash_rtx_cb >> (sigh, bad modularity). I'm not at all familiar with how the hashing >> is used within the selective scheduler, so I can't really say what the >> selective scheduler *should* be doing here. > > OK, I se

Re: Possible bug in cse.c affecting pre/post-modify mem access

2018-05-12 Thread A. Skrobov
>>> If we look in sel-sched-ir.c we see that it calls into hash_rtx_cb >>> (sigh, bad modularity). I'm not at all familiar with how the hashing >>> is used within the selective scheduler, so I can't really say what the >>> selective scheduler *should* be doing here. >> >> OK, I see. Now what do y

Re: Possible bug in cse.c affecting pre/post-modify mem access

2018-05-12 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/12/2018 10:02 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "A. Skrobov" writes: >>> If we look in sel-sched-ir.c we see that it calls into hash_rtx_cb >>> (sigh, bad modularity). I'm not at all familiar with how the hashing >>> is used within the selective scheduler, so I can't really say what the >>> s

Re: Possible bug in cse.c affecting pre/post-modify mem access

2018-05-12 Thread Richard Sandiford
Jeff Law writes: > On 05/12/2018 10:02 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> "A. Skrobov" writes: If we look in sel-sched-ir.c we see that it calls into hash_rtx_cb (sigh, bad modularity). I'm not at all familiar with how the hashing is used within the selective scheduler, so I can't r

Re: Possible bug in cse.c affecting pre/post-modify mem access

2018-05-12 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 05/12/2018 07:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > No. We're not supposed to have any auto-inc insns prior to the auto-inc > pass. A stack push/pop early in the compiler would have to be > represented by a PARALLEL. > > It's been this way forever. It's documented in the internals manual > somewhere. S