On 10/11/18 3:51 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > I think it has a sense because even if LRA has the same problem, it will be > hard to fix it in reload and LRA. Nobody worked on reload pass for a long > time and it is not worth to fix it because we are moving from reload. [snip] > In any case, the patch is ok for me.
Ok, I committed the patch as revision 265113 with a slightly longer comment explaining why we're disabling it for reload. Thanks! > I suspect that LRA might be immune to these failures because it generates > new reload pseudos if it is necessary for insn constraints. Plus there is > some primitive value numbering in LRA which can avoid the problem. Maybe. We still have some LRA targets with issues, but we haven't gotten to the point of identifying what the problem is. It could well be target constraints, etc. that is the problem. I built a newer binutils on our s390x box and I have now recreated the selftest ICE in stage3 and I still have the largish aarch64 failure I'm looking into. Peter
