On 25/10/23 2:19 am, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 10/24/23 13:36, rep.dot....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> As said, I don't see why the below was not cleaned up before the V1
>>>>>> submission.
>>>>>> Iff it breaks when manually CSEing, I'm curious why?
>>>> The function below looks identical in v12 of the patch.
>>>> Why didn't you use common subexpressions?
>>>> ba
>>> Using CSE here breaks aarch64 regressions hence I have reverted it back
>>> not to use CSE,
>> Just for my own education, can you please paste your patch perusing common
>> subexpressions and an assembly diff of the failing versus working aarch64
>> testcase, along how you configured that failing (cross-?)compiler and the
>> command-line of a typical testcase that broke when manually CSEing the
>> function below?
>
> I was meaning to ask this before, but what exactly is the CSE issue, manually
> or whatever.
>
Here is the abi interface where I CSE'D and got a mail from automated
regressions run that aarch64
test fails.
static inline bool
abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (int regno)
{
if (targetm.calls.function_value_regno_p (regno))
return true;
return false;
}
+static inline bool
+abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (int regno)
+{
+ return targetm.calls.function_value_regno_p (regno);
+}
I have not done any assembly diff as myself have not cross compiled with
aarch64.
Reverting above CSE the tests passes with automatically regression runs and
build with linaro.
Linaro runs the tests with every patch we submit in gcc-patches and if there is
any fail they
report error.
Reverting CSE the Linaro tests passes.
Thanks & Regards
Ajit
> -Vineet
