Hi, Is it OK for the trunk?
I guess so, but need an explicit OK. Thanks Bernd. On 08/01/16 20:52, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On 08/01/16 19:54, Jeff Law wrote: >> Looks like you've probably nailed it. It'll be interesting see if >> there's any fallout (though our RTL optimizer testing is pretty weak, so >> even if there were, I doubt we'd catch it). >> > > If there is, it will probably a performance regression... > > Anyway I'd say these two patches do just disable actually wrong > transformations. So here are both patches as separate diffs > with your suggestion for the comment in cse_insn. > > I believe that on x86_64 both patches do not change a single bit. > > However I think there are more paradoxical subregs generated all over, > but the aarch64 insv code pattern did trigger more hidden bugs than > any other port. It is certainly unfortunate that the major source > of paradoxical subreg is in a target-dependent code path :( > > Please apologize that I am not able to reduce/finalize the aarch64 test > case at this time, as I usually only work with arm and intel targets, > but I made an exception here, because a bug like that may affect all > targets sooner or later. > > > Boot-strap and reg-testing on x86_64-linux-gnu. > Plus aarch64 bootstrap and isl-testing by Andreas. > > > Is it OK for trunk? > > > > Thanks > Bernd.
