https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think combine was changed for the similar reason to support psedudos but I
> cannot find the patch right now.
Note combine was only fully fixed recently in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-12-09 15:33:53
UTC ---
Any passes which allocate a table for maximum number of registers
can't deal with new pseudo registers. But there is nothing to
check and enforce it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-09
16:09:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
There shouldn't be any such tables. Before the DF merge, there was
no_new_pseudos, but it had its problems.
Why can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-09
16:13:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #5)
Why can't cse_reg_info_table() be modified to intercept this?
Correction: get_cse_reg_info()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-12-10 01:05:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #5)
Why can't cse_reg_info_table() be modified to intercept this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-12
03:49:22 UTC ---
Can you explain how you hit this with what patch and what testcase on what
target?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55279
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-12 07:25:27
UTC ---
If we revert the explow.c change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=177592
gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c will cause valgrind error with
10 matches
Mail list logo