On 08/10/2018 02:55 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:34:26PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool
>
>
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:34:26PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >>> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool
> >>>
> >>> PR rtl-optimization/85645
> >>> * regcprop.c (co
On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool
>>>
>>> PR rtl-optimization/85645
>>> * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an
>>> insn that h
> Are these patches okay for backport to 8? At least the first two.
If they fulfill the criteria for a release branch, no objection by me.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi Eric,
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool
> >
> > PR rtl-optimization/85645
> > * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an
> > insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note.
>
> OK, thanks.
Are these
> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool
>
> PR rtl-optimization/85645
> * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an
> insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note.
OK, thanks.
--
Eric Botcazou
Changing a SET that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note is wrong if we are
changing the SET_DEST, or if the REG_CFA_REGISTER has nil as its
argument, and maybe some other cases. It's never really useful to
propagate into such an instruction, so let's just bail whenever we
see such a note.
Bootstrapped an
