Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-12-14 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 12/13/2017 07:34 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: On 10/16/2017 10:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: This is another version of the patch to fix     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada. Committed as rev. 253796. Hi Vl

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-12-13 Thread Tom de Vries
On 10/16/2017 10:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: This is another version of the patch to fix    https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada. Committed as rev. 253796. Hi Vladimir, AFAIU this bit of the patch makes sure

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/12/2017 10:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >>> Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your >>> change, ok for trunk? > > BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:05:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > On 10/12/2017 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > > Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your > > > > change, o

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 10/12/2017 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your change, ok for trunk? BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I've cooked up

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your > > change, ok for trunk? BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I've cooked up a runtime test that fails before your pat

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! > The following patch fixes > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 > > LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are > part of insn patterns > like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance in EBB which creates only moves > and they usually > have

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-11 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 10/11/2017 05:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are part of insn patterns like CF

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-11 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > The following patch fixes > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 > > LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are > part of insn patterns like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance i