On 08/26/2016 06:03 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
yeah, it was just from being overly careful to not change behavior, but
that's silly we can always revert if it turns out to break something.
Not silly at all - it's a good mindset to have. But in cases where the
order doesn't matter I think it's
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:46:14AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 08:50 AM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
> > @@ -2626,8 +2626,10 @@ unshare_all_rtl_1 (rtx_insn *insn)
> > This special care is necessary when the stack slot MEM does not
> > actually appear in the insn cha
On 08/25/2016 08:50 AM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
@@ -2626,8 +2626,10 @@ unshare_all_rtl_1 (rtx_insn *insn)
This special care is necessary when the stack slot MEM does not
actually appear in the insn chain. If it does appear, its address
is unshared from all else at that
From: Trevor Saunders
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-08-25 Trevor Saunders
* emit-rtl.h (struct rtl_data): Make stack_slot_list a vector.
* emit-rtl.c (unshare_all_rtl_1): Adjust.
(unshare_all_rtl_again): Likewise.
* function.c (assign_stack_local_1): Likewise.
(
