Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Patch attached. I'll give it a whirl on SPARC but not immediately so, Kaz,
> if
> you can test it on SH in the meantime, you can apply it on all branches.
>
>
> 2009-07-14 Eric Botcazou
>
> PR rtl-optimization/40710
> * resource.c (mark_target_live_regs)
> > Why does find_basic_block ignore NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK notes?
>
> The same question arises to me.
That's explained in the head comment of find_basic_block: the CFG is destroyed
by the DBR pass in some controlled way so the strategy is to recompute the
liveness info starting from data that ar
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kaz Kojima wrote:
Hi,
I hope DF/middle-end experts will comment about this.
PR target/40710
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40710
is a wrong code problem on SH. A delayed slot of a conditional
branch insn is wrongly fill
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> OK, so isn't the bug obvious then? You said: "mark_target_live_regs
> uses df_get_live_in to get live regs for the basic block including the
> opposite_thread insn which is insn 32.". And you had insn 32 in basic
> block 3. So find_basic_block returns the wrong basic block
> I doubt he can help you with this one... When your problem concerns
> reorg, you should talk to people like Eric Botcazou or Richard
> Sandiford or HP Nillson. I've added Eric to the CC, to make this a
> happier crowd. :-)
Thank you. I was about to leave for vacation but I'll stay for this on
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> [I'd like to add kenny to the CC list.]
I doubt he can help you with this one... When your problem concerns
reorg, you should talk to people like Eric Botcazou or Richard
Sandiford or HP Nillson. I've added Eric to the CC, to make this a
happi
[I'd like to add kenny to the CC list.]
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> So when the CFG is still valid, r15 is live-out in basic block 2 and
> live-in in basic block 3 (which contains insns 32, whatever that means
> for an invalid CFG). For which bb does mark_target_live_regs call
> df_get_live_in?
gdb
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hope DF/middle-end experts will comment about this.
>
> PR target/40710
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40710
>
> is a wrong code problem on SH. A delayed slot of a conditional
> branch insn is wrongly filled with an ins
