Thanks! Applied to master with the requested changes as 417b8379b32945d61f1ce3d8281bee063eea1937. Note that the final version factors out the duplicated logic, so we now have a single place to add the comments.
Philipp. On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 at 06:09, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 6/22/23 05:11, Philipp Tomsich wrote: > > From: Manolis Tsamis <manolis.tsa...@vrull.eu> > > > > Fixes: 6a2e8dcbbd4bab3 > > > > Propagation for the stack pointer in regcprop was enabled in > > 6a2e8dcbbd4bab3, but set ORIGINAL_REGNO/REG_ATTRS/REG_POINTER for > > stack_pointer_rtx which caused regression (e.g., PR 110313, PR 110308). > > > > This fix adds special handling for stack_pointer_rtx in the places > > where maybe_mode_change is called. This also adds an check in > > maybe_mode_change to return the stack pointer only when the requested > > mode matches the mode of stack_pointer_rtx. > > > > PR 110308 > Should be > PR debug/110308 > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * regcprop.cc (maybe_mode_change): Check stack_pointer_rtx mode. > > (find_oldest_value_reg): Special handling of stack_pointer_rtx. > > (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Ditto. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * g++.dg/torture/pr110308.C: New test. > I don't doubt the need for the special handling of the stack pointer, > but it's not obvious why it's needed. So my request is that both humks > which specialize handling of ORIGINAL_REGNO, REG_ATTRS & REG_POINTER > have a comment indicating why we must not adjust those values when > NEW_RTX is STACK_POINTER_RTX. > > OK with that change. > > Jeff
