On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:51:53PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> Hello Uros, and everyone else, >> >> Now that LRA is always used for the i386 targets, reload_in_progress >> is never set so all code conditional on it is now dead. The attached >> patch removes this code. >> >> Sadly I'm having difficulty testing the patch because I have no access >> to a suitable x86_64 or ix86 box :-) I'll try to test the patch on a >> compile farm machine, but I'm already posting the patch to hear if >> this is still OK for this late stage of the development cycle. It's >> not as if we're going to go back to reload so the code really is dead >> AFAICT, but it's obviously not a bug fix. > > While LRA is always on, making it harder to test with reload doesn't seem to > be a good idea to me for 4.9, when some RA issue is reported for these > architectures, often one just patches config/i386/i386.c by hand to enable > reload instead of LRA and tests it with that instead. This patch would mean > we'd need to keep around a patchset to apply for those purposes.
I also think that we should leave reload functionality in 4.9, for the same reasons as Jakub presents. IMO, LRA still has some rough edges, please see [1] that triggers with improved x86 atomic_compare_and_swap<dwi>_doubleword pattern. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58945 Uros.
