On 11/22/2017 10:46 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> One of the effects of:
>
>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg02066.html
>
> is that we now emit:
>
>(set (hard-frame-pointer) (stack-pointer))
>
> instead of the previous non-canonical:
>
>(set (hard-frame-pointer) (plus
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:46:26PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> 2017-11-22 Richard Sandiford
>>
>> gcc/
>> * cselib.c (expand_loc, cselib_expand_value_rtx_1): Change
>> justification for checking for the stack and hard frame pointers.
>> Check them
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 05:46:26PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> 2017-11-22 Richard Sandiford
>
> gcc/
> * cselib.c (expand_loc, cselib_expand_value_rtx_1): Change
> justification for checking for the stack and hard frame pointers.
> Check them by pointer rather than regis
One of the effects of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg02066.html
is that we now emit:
(set (hard-frame-pointer) (stack-pointer))
instead of the previous non-canonical:
(set (hard-frame-pointer) (plus (stack-pointer) (const_int 0)))
However, recent changes to aarch64_ex
