Ah, I misread your comment and went hunting for DF_REF_ARTIFICIAL. Sorry!
Will fix.
Thanks again,
Bill
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 03:31:35PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/11/16 2:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Maybe thi
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 03:31:35PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/11/16 2:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Maybe this should use DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL? Or if that doesn't work,
> > DF_REF_INSN_INFO?
> >
> OK, currently regstrapping the following, which also fixes the problem with
> a non-bo
Hi Segher,
This indeed bootstrapped on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no
regressions. Ok for trunk?
Thanks for the review!
Bill
On 12/11/16 3:31 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Segher,
>
> On 12/11/16 2:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Maybe this should use DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL? Or if th
Hi Segher,
On 12/11/16 2:00 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Maybe this should use DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL? Or if that doesn't work,
> DF_REF_INSN_INFO?
>
OK, currently regstrapping the following, which also fixes the problem with
a non-bootstrap compiler. Is this ok for trunk if it succeeds?
Thank
Hi Bill,
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 01:35:59PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c(revision 243506)
> +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c(working copy)
> @@ -41433,6 +41433,12 @@ find_alignment_op (rtx_insn *insn, rtx base_reg)
>if (!base_def_link || base_de
Hi,
PR78695 demonstrates a bug in swap analysis where we assume that a
data-flow definition contains a nonzero insn_info. This assumption
is wrong at least when -fstack-protector is in effect, as the
definition of the base register of the stack protector is not
associated with any insn. This pat
