Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:23:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:16:46PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote: > > I think there may be one situation after reload that's not handled > > by the above. frame_read is only used for const calls. What about > > the situation where

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:16:46PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote: > I think there may be one situation after reload that's not handled > by the above. frame_read is only used for const calls. What about > the situation where we have a non const sibcall and the frame pointer > isn't eliminated?

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-05 Thread John David Anglin
On 1/5/2015 1:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: So isn't the right replacement for the target hook H.J. wanted to add the HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_ARG_POINTER macro? If argp is not hfp, then the stores through argp are not considered to be based on the frame pointer, if it is the same thing, such as on PA

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 07:19:33AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/04/15 10:16, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> > >>>But either your new hook or the original fix makes no sense. > >> > >>All I want is to restore the old behavior on x86. If the original fix > >>makes no sense, should it be reverted? > >

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-05 Thread Jeff Law
On 01/04/15 10:16, Richard Biener wrote: But either your new hook or the original fix makes no sense. All I want is to restore the old behavior on x86. If the original fix makes no sense, should it be reverted? I think the original fix is too conservative Perhaps. Neither John nor I felt i

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-04 Thread Richard Biener
On January 4, 2015 3:57:07 PM CET, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On January 3, 2015 10:48:47 PM CET, "H.J. Lu" >wrote: >>>On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM, John David Anglin >>> wrote: On 2015-01-03, at 3:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat,

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-04 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On January 3, 2015 10:48:47 PM CET, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >>On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM, John David Anglin >> wrote: >>> On 2015-01-03, at 3:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:10 PM, John David Anglin >> wrote: > On

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-04 Thread Richard Biener
On January 3, 2015 10:48:47 PM CET, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM, John David Anglin > wrote: >> On 2015-01-03, at 3:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:10 PM, John David Anglin > wrote: On 2015-01-03, at 2:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3,

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2015-01-03, at 3:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:10 PM, John David Anglin >> wrote: >>> On 2015-01-03, at 2:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John David Anglin wrote: > On W

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-03 Thread John David Anglin
On 2015-01-03, at 3:18 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:10 PM, John David Anglin > wrote: >> On 2015-01-03, at 2:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John David Anglin >>> wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, H.J. Lu wrote: > - /* Arguments for

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:10 PM, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2015-01-03, at 2:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John David Anglin >> wrote: >>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> - /* Arguments for a sibling call that are pushed to memory are passed

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-03 Thread John David Anglin
On 2015-01-03, at 2:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John David Anglin > wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> - /* Arguments for a sibling call that are pushed to memory are passed >>> - using the incoming argument pointer of the current function.

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John David Anglin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> - /* Arguments for a sibling call that are pushed to memory are passed >> - using the incoming argument pointer of the current function. These >> - may or may not be frame related de

Re: PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2015-01-03 Thread John David Anglin
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014, H.J. Lu wrote: > - /* Arguments for a sibling call that are pushed to memory are passed > - using the incoming argument pointer of the current function. These > - may or may not be frame related depending on the target. Since > - argument pointer related

PATCH: [5 Regression] r219037 caused FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c

2014-12-31 Thread H.J. Lu
To fix a wrong code bug on HPPA with sibcall optimization, r219037 changes DSE to treat sibcall as though it does a wild read. However, it causes a regression on x86: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c scan-rtl-dump dse1 "global deletions = (2|3)" FAIL: gcc.dg/pr44194-1.c scan-rtl-dump-not final "insn[: ][