On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Oct 9, 2015, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ok. Note that I think emit_block_move shouldn't mess with the addressable >> flag. > > I have successfully tested a patch that stops it from doing so, > reverting https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429#c11 but > according to bugs 49429 and 49454, it looks like removing it would mess > with escape analysis introduced in r175063 for bug 44194. The thread > that introduces the mark_addressable calls suggests some discomfort with > this solution, and even a suggestion that the markings should be > deferred past the end of expand, but in the end there was agreement to > go with it. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01746.html
Aww, indeed. Of course the issue is that we don't track pointers to the stack introduced during RTL properly. > I'm leaving it alone, since I can't reasonably test on the platforms > where the problems showed up. Yeah. Thanks for checking. Might want to add a comment before that addressable setting now that you've done the archeology. Richard. > > -- > Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ > You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi > Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member > Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer
