https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 8 21:29:44 2015
New Revision: 219361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55023
PR middle-end/64388
* dse.c (struct insn_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #14 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Dec 22 23:10:18 2014
New Revision: 219037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55023
* dse.c (scan_insn): Treat sibling call as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #13 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 34086
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34086&action=edit
Patch
Testing...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #12 from John David Anglin ---
Breakpoint 3, delete_dead_store_insn (insn_info=0x1b5ccf0)
at ../../gcc/gcc/dse.c:948
948 if (!dbg_cnt (dse))
(gdb) p *insn_info
$3 = {cannot_delete = false, wild_read = false, non_frame_wild_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2014-11-07 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
IIRC, the PA was a bit unique in how we had to set up the virtual registers due
to the combination of stack growth and arg growth directions. It may be the
case that after virtual register instantiation we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
After some more digging, I think the problem is in dse, not dce. It
deletes this instruction
which stores part of the sibcall arguments:
(insn 31 27 50 2 (set (mem:SI (reg/f:SI 115) [0 S4 A6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
find_call_stack_args() is not called for sibcalls. It seemed at first
that it needed
to be called from mark_insn to mark the arguments of sibcalls but it
can't handle
arguments stored using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 7-Nov-14, at 5:24 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Is the setup for the memory store different? ie, in the sibcall
> case are we
> making it hard for DSE to see that we have argument st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Is the setup for the memory store different? ie, in the sibcall case are we
making it hard for DSE to see that we have argument stores? different base
register perhaps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 11/7/2014 5:13 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> Agreed, seems that RTL DSE is eliminating the stores. Presumably its not
> considering the call as potentially reading the argument stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33907|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 33908
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33908&action=edit
dse1 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 33907
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33907&action=edit
fwprop2 dump
Looks like things go bad in dse1 pass.
17 matches
Mail list logo
