On 07/01/14 21:06, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 01/07/14 09:16, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> This is PR56791. The address inside of an autoinc is reloaded, and the >>> autoinc is reloaded, but the reload insns are emitted in the wrong order. >>> >>> As far as I can tell, this is because find_reloads_address_1 has two >>> methods of pushing a reload for an autoinc, one of them using the >>> previously identified type, and the other (better one) using >>> RELOAD_OTHER. If we previously reloaded an inner part of the address, >>> the use of RELOAD_OTHER is mismatched and leads to the wrong order of >>> insns. >>> >>> This patch just remembers if we've pushed a reload, and forces the >>> optimization to be skipped in that case. Bootstrapped and tested on >>> x86_64-linux (with lra_p disabled but still somewhat pointlessly); John >>> Anglin said in the PR that it tests ok on PA. Will commit in a few days >>> if no objections. >> >> No objections to the substance of the patch, though I think the comment >> could be clearer. > > Though my question is what target does this matter since ARM has moved > away from reload and other targets should do the same? >
There's still the chance we will have to move back for this release when building Thumb1. Only if we can iron out enough of the bugs/size regressions will we stick with LRA for that permutation. R.
