On 10/04/2018 08:27 AM, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
My bad, I used dg-cmp-results without verbosity which didn't show the
problem It starts to show it with -v -v, I'm not sure why. I'll have a
look right now and revert by the end of today if I cannot come up with
a fix. Does that sound ok?
Yes,
; > >
> > >
> > > From 2831d8b886d92513c2d30d43a6a989d2bbd0ceee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Thomas Preud'homme
> > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:50:12 +0100
> > > Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH, LRA] Never reload fixed form const
89d2bbd0ceee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Thomas Preud'homme
> > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:50:12 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH, LRA] Never reload fixed form constraints memory
> > operand
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The unconditional reload o
eload fixed form constraints memory
operand
Hi,
The unconditional reload of address operand for recognized instruction
in process_address_1 prevent the patch for fixing "PR85434: Address of
stack protector guard spilled to stack on ARM" proposed at [1]. The code
in this patch attempt t
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:50:12 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH, LRA] Never reload fixed form constraints memory
operand
Hi,
The unconditional reload of address operand for recognized instruction
in process_address_1 prevent the patch for fixing "PR85434: Address of
stack protector guard s
