> This breaks bootstrap on ARM:
>
> /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc-fsf/gcc/reload1.c: In function `void
> choose_reload_regs(insn_chain*)':
> /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/gcc-fsf/gcc/reload1.c:6959:19: error: unused
> variable `tem' [-Werror=unused-variable]
> rtx check_reg, tem;
My bad... fixed
On 19/09/12 14:30, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
>> 2012-09-18 Eric Botcazou
>>
>> PR rtl-optimization/54290
>> * reload1.c (choose_reload_regs): Also take into account secondary MEMs
>> to remove address replacements for inherited reloads.
>> (replaced_subr
Eric Botcazou wrote:
> 2012-09-18 Eric Botcazou
>
> PR rtl-optimization/54290
> * reload1.c (choose_reload_regs): Also take into account secondary MEMs
> to remove address replacements for inherited reloads.
> (replaced_subreg): Move around.
Looks good to me. OK if te
> In any case, the change in the condition you noticed was introduced by a
> recent patch by Bernd:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00171.html
>
> It seems that we ought to use a similar test to what Bernd introduced in
> gen_reload, that is, use the "replaced_subreg" routine on rld
On 09/17/2012 07:32 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> In any case, the change in the condition you noticed was introduced by a
> recent
> patch by Bernd: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00171.html
>
> It seems that we ought to use a similar test to what Bernd introduced in
> gen_reload, th
Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Reload 1 of insn #85 inherits the reload reg from reload 1 of insn #84, the
> bug being that the same reload reg is also used for reload 0 of insn #85.
>
> This is supposed to work like so: the inheritance code in choose_reload_regs
> calls free_for_value_p with IGNORE_ADDR
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-suse-linux. Does that look plausible? Do
> we want to fix this on release branches as well?
>
>
> 2012-09-02 Eric Botcazou
>
> PR rtl-optimization/54290
> * reload1.c (choose_reload_regs): Also take into account secondary MEMs
> to remove
> 2012-09-02 Eric Botcazou
>
> PR rtl-optimization/54290
> * reload1.c (choose_reload_regs): Also take into account secondary MEMs
> to remove address replacements for inherited reloads.
I forgot to attach the testcase...
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20120902-1.c: New tes
Hi,
this is a regression present on the 4.6 branch at -O2 for the SPARC, but the
underlying issue is presumably latent everywhere. It's reload inheritance so
the opinion of reload specialists is welcome.
We have a couple of insns with 2 reloads each:
Reloads for insn # 84
Reload 0: reload_in
