On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> In the the interest of fixing arm bootstrap here are the two blocking issues
> and the changes proposed for them.
> I'm not familiar enough with regrename or sel-sched to make a call on whether
> these are right or not, I just want to keep the ball rolling so we can fix
> arm bootstrap.
>
> These changes allowed arm bootstrap to complete.
> Are they the right way to go?
> If so, I'll do a full bootstrap and test run on aarch64 and x86_64.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
>
> 2016-09-22 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
> Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
> Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com>
>
> * regrename.c (rename_chains): Avoid using HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM
> in a boolean context.
> * sel-sched.c (mark_unavailable_hard_regs): Likewise.
This doesn't look right to me. Note that you're patching uses of
H_F_P_IS_FRAME_POINTER (the ChangeLog is wrong). As I understand, the issue is
that config/arm/arm.h defines that to plain 0, which causes the warning (ugh?).
Does the following restore bootstrap?
Thanks.
Alexander
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
index 373dc85..1ae82c1 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
@@ -887,8 +887,8 @@ extern int arm_arch_crc;
? ARM_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM \
: THUMB_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)
-#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_FRAME_POINTER 0
-#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_ARG_POINTER 0
+#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_FRAME_POINTER false
+#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_ARG_POINTER false
#define FP_REGNUM HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM
