Applied to master (with fixed-up commit message).  Thanks!
--Philipp.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 at 17:58, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/17/24 4:51 AM, Konstantinos Eleftheriou wrote:
> > From: kelefth <konstantinos.elefther...@vrull.eu>
> >
> > During the initialization of the base register for the zero-offset store, in
> > the case that we are eliminating the load, we used a paradoxical subreg
> > assuming that we don't care about the higher bits of the register. This led 
> > to
> > writing wrong values when we were not updating the whole register.
> >
> > This patch fixes the issue by zero-extending the value stored in the base
> > register instead of using a paradoxical subreg.
> >
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86 and AArch64.
> >
> >       PR rtl-optimization/117835
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> >       * avoid-store-forwarding.cc 
> > (store_forwarding_analyzer::process_store_forwarding):
> >       Zero-extend the value stored in the base register instead of using a
> >       paradoxical subreg.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> >       * gcc.target/i386/pr117835.c: New test.
> OK.  Please reference both bugs in the commit message though (117872
> being the other instance of this bug).
>
> Thanks.
> jeff
>
>

Reply via email to