> If you prefer to do it this way, fine, but I think we should have some
> ENABLE_RTL_CHECKING verification somewhere that the REG_NORETURN vs.
> REG_ARGS_SIZE ordering is always correct.
OK, this is clearly going ouf of proportion. :-) Your latest patch is fine.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:59:59PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I'd find that very fragile. E.g. distribute_notes itself reverses the
> > order of all notes, and for no REG_NOTES I think we rely on any ordering.
>
> AFAIK distribute_notes is the only routine that redistributes the RTL notes
>
> I'd find that very fragile. E.g. distribute_notes itself reverses the
> order of all notes, and for no REG_NOTES I think we rely on any ordering.
AFAIK distribute_notes is the only routine that redistributes the RTL notes for
a fixed insn, so I'm a little skeptical about the purported fragilit
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:28:55AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > IMHO reordering the notes in the chain would be even more work than this.
>
> Can't we just move down the lines
>
> if (ecf_flags & ECF_NORETURN)
> add_reg_note (call_insn, REG_NORETURN, const0_rtx);
>
> if (ecf_flags & E
> IMHO reordering the notes in the chain would be even more work than this.
Can't we just move down the lines
if (ecf_flags & ECF_NORETURN)
add_reg_note (call_insn, REG_NORETURN, const0_rtx);
if (ecf_flags & ECF_RETURNS_TWICE)
{
add_reg_note (call_insn, REG_SETJMP, const0_rtx);
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:06:55AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > You're right. So how about this patch (untested so far) instead?
> > In the combiner it still needs to handle the case where REG_NORETURN note
> > hasn't been placed yet, because then fixup_args_size_notes doesn't consider
> > it b
> You're right. So how about this patch (untested so far) instead?
> In the combiner it still needs to handle the case where REG_NORETURN note
> hasn't been placed yet, because then fixup_args_size_notes doesn't consider
> it being a noret call.
Still too much work for the combiner in my opinion.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:16:04AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > And for noreturn calls, it doesn't do anything wrong, the problem is that it
> > returns the old size for them.
>
> According to the head comment, that's precisely the problem, since it should
> do
> something for them, in parti
> And for noreturn calls, it doesn't do anything wrong, the problem is that it
> returns the old size for them.
According to the head comment, that's precisely the problem, since it should do
something for them, in particular put back the note.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 09:19:54PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > 2012-01-10 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR bootstrap/51796
> > * combine.c (distribute_notes): If i3 is a noreturn call,
> > allow old_size to be equal to args_size.
>
> Wouldn't all the (potential) callers of fixup_args_si
> 2012-01-10 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR bootstrap/51796
> * combine.c (distribute_notes): If i3 is a noreturn call,
> allow old_size to be equal to args_size.
Wouldn't all the (potential) callers of fixup_args_size_notes need to do the
same kind of scanning? IOW, shouldn't this be
Hi!
My recent patch which adds REG_ARGS_SIZE note to all
!ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS noreturn calls introduced a regression,
the checking code in distribute_notes can ICE if something
is combned with the noreturn call and the noreturn call has
the same REG_ARGS_SIZE value as before.
Fixed thusly, bo
12 matches
Mail list logo
