On Wed, 13 May 2026 01:44:55 +0900, Jeffrey Law wrote: > > > > On 5/12/2026 5:40 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Yoshinori Sato <[email protected]> writes: > >> The LRA was confused and looping due to the definition of the register > >> class. > >> The LRA yielded incorrect results because the manipulation of stack frames > >> and the movement of double words relied heavily on existing reloads. > >> These changes ensure that the correct code is generated even when the > >> "-mlra" > >> option is specified. > >> > >> v5 changes. > >> - Moved the XEXP extractions inside the PLUS check in > >> rx_legitimize_address. > >> - Replaced the magic number 8 with UNITS_PER_WORD * 2. > >> - Fixed the C comment style. > >> - Reverted the redundant changes in rx_modes_tieable_p. > >> - Added the missing function comments for rx_get_subword, > >> rx_split_double_move, > >> and rx_relax_double_operands. > >> - Removed the redundant checks in rx_relax_double_operands and fixed the > >> indentation. > >> - Removed the redundant emit_insn and DONE in the movdi and movdf > >> expanders. > >> - Replaced the output template of *ashlsi3_lra with "#" since it is > >> always split. > > Thanks, LGTM. Pushed to trunk as r17-468-g7ec6968058b393 > > (with a slightly tweaked changelog). > THanks. There's still work to do. I spun my tester after this change > on the rx port: > > Tests that now fail, but worked before (431 tests): > > I won't list them all. Given how many are execution failures, there's > likely a code generation failure in there somewhere. > > A few of them: > > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/20001009-2.c -O0 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020614-1.c -O0 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050410-1.c -O1 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050410-1.c -O2 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050410-1.c -O2 -flto > -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050410-1.c -O3 -g execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/20050410-1.c -Os execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/921016-1.c -O0 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/960311-1.c -O1 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/960311-2.c -O1 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/980617-1.c -O0 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/990324-1.c -O0 execution test > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/execute/990326-1.c -O0 execution test > > Anyway, seems like something for Yoshinori to look into. > > Jeff
OK. I'll look into it. -- Yosinori Sato
