On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:44:34PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:30:53PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:00:43AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > I've been looking at a lot of reload/lra code lately in trying to fix > > > pr71680, and noticed a change to rs6000_preferred_reload_class. > > > > > > In https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00134.html you made > > > preferred_reload_class pick a register class when given NO_REGS as an > > > argument. That seems odd to me given the usual behaviour of > > > preferred_reload_class is to restrict reg classes. Did you mean to > > > make that change? I'm wondering whether something you were playing > > > with escaped upstream, because there is no ChangeLog for it as far as > > > I can see.. > > > > I was playing with that, but given the patch was meant to be complex only, I > > suspect we should try taking it out now, and see if it affects anything. > > Now bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux and > powerpc64-linux. OK to apply?
Okay, thanks, Segher > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_preferred_reload_class): Delete > code accidentally committed 2016-05-02 providing class when given > NO_REGS.
