Hi Andre, On 9 December 2016 at 17:16, Andre Vieira (lists) <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> wrote: > On 09/12/16 16:02, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 12/09/2016 04:34 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> >>>> Regardless, the other testcases I add in this patch show a sub-optimal >>>> transformation done by postreload, turning direct calls into indirect >>>> calls, for targets which have specifically pointed out that no CSE >>>> should be done on functions through 'NO_FUNCTION_CSE'. >>> >>> >>> What I'm wondering about is whether the patch wouldn't also prevent the >>> opposite transformation. Is there a reason not to do that one? Can the >>> problem be modeled by tweaking costs? >> >> I really don't think we should have a solution that relies on costs >> for correctness . >> >> regards >> Ramana >> > > Regardless, 'reload_cse_simplify' would never perform the opposite > transformation. It checks whether it can replace anything within the > first argument INSN, with the second argument TESTREG. As the name > implies this will always be a register. I double checked, the function > is only called in 'reload_cse_regs' and 'testreg' is created using > 'gen_rtx_REG'. >
The new test (gcc.target/arm/pr78255-2.c scan-assembler b\\s+bar) added at r243494 fails on old arm architectures, such as: * arm-none-linux-gnueabi, forcing -march=armv5t in runtestflags * arm-none-eabi with default cpu/fpu/mode Christophe > Cheers, > Andre
