On 2019-08-16 11:06 a.m., Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 2019-08-15 3:46 p.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
as discussed in the PR 91109 audit trail,
my previous patch missed a case where no spilling is necessary,
but the re-materialized instruction has now scratch regs without
a hard register assi
On 2019-08-15 3:46 p.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
as discussed in the PR 91109 audit trail,
my previous patch missed a case where no spilling is necessary,
but the re-materialized instruction has now scratch regs without
a hard register assignment. And thus the LRA pass falls out of
the loop
On 8/15/19 9:46 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as discussed in the PR 91109 audit trail,
> my previous patch missed a case where no spilling is necessary,
> but the re-materialized instruction has now scratch regs without
> a hard register assignment. And thus the LRA pass falls out of
> the
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:31:57AM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> I think this wrong code bug would be good to be fixed in 9.2.
>
> Would you like me to go ahead, or should it wait for 9.3 ?
Wait for 9.2.1 reopening, even if we'd roll another RC, I'd be afraid that
for RA changes, especially ones
Hi Jakub,
I think this wrong code bug would be good to be fixed in 9.2.
Would you like me to go ahead, or should it wait for 9.3 ?
Thanks
Bernd.
On 8/7/19 3:32 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 8/5/19 4:37 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> PR 91109 is a wrong-code bug, where LRA is usin
On 8/5/19 4:37 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
PR 91109 is a wrong-code bug, where LRA is using a scratch register
which is actually not available for use, and thus gets clobbered
when it should not. That seems to be mostly because the live range
info of the cloned schatch register is not workin
