Hi!
So, the core of this problem is once again that regno_reg_rtx is
reallocated. It will be another decade until we got rid of all fallout
of breaking that guarantee :-(
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 10:50:40AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 04:56:55PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > - union { rtx *r; int *i; struct insn_link **l; } where;
> > > + union { rtx *r; int *i; rtx m; struct insn_link **l; } where;
> >
> > NAK. It is not clear at all what "rtx m" means, esp. since there is an
> > "rtx *r" already. In the PR you said "machine_mode m", that is clear of
> > course, can you do that instead?
>
> So in that case something like this (i.e. the regno variant, renamed
> to subst_mode from SUBST_MODE, and naming the union member regno rather
> than m)?
I can't say I like that either, the undo for a mode change should just
store the old mode directly, anything else is too fragile.
But, whatever, we'll fix that later. The patch is okay for trunk.
Thanks!
Segher
