On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 05:47:11PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> > The postreload change is ok.
>>
>> The revert is OK even without approval.
I see.
The patch is also OK.
Thanks,
Uros.
> Well, it isn't a pure reversion,
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 05:47:11PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > The postreload change is ok.
>
> The revert is OK even without approval.
Well, it isn't a pure reversion, it is reversion plus addition of
const char *name = LABEL_NAME (label);
PUT_CODE (label, NOTE);
NOTE_KIND (label) =
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> The testcase below (and others) still ICEs with my PR81766 fix.
>> If there is a cfg cleanup in between ix86_init_pic_reg (during RA)
>> and postreload, the label
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The testcase below (and others) still ICEs with my PR81766 fix.
> If there is a cfg cleanup in between ix86_init_pic_reg (during RA)
> and postreload, the label which my fix moved to the right spot is
> turned into NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL note
Hi!
The testcase below (and others) still ICEs with my PR81766 fix.
If there is a cfg cleanup in between ix86_init_pic_reg (during RA)
and postreload, the label which my fix moved to the right spot is
turned into NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL note and moved back where it
originally used to be emitted.