Re: [PATCH] Better fix for the x86_64 -mcmodel=large ICEs (PR target/82145)

2017-09-18 Thread Uros Bizjak
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,

Re: [PATCH] Better fix for the x86_64 -mcmodel=large ICEs (PR target/82145)

2017-09-17 Thread Jakub Jelinek
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) =

Re: [PATCH] Better fix for the x86_64 -mcmodel=large ICEs (PR target/82145)

2017-09-17 Thread Uros Bizjak
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

Re: [PATCH] Better fix for the x86_64 -mcmodel=large ICEs (PR target/82145)

2017-09-13 Thread Richard Biener
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

[PATCH] Better fix for the x86_64 -mcmodel=large ICEs (PR target/82145)

2017-09-13 Thread Jakub Jelinek
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.