Re: [PATCH] rtlanal: dead_or_set_regno_p should handle CLOBBER (PR83424)

2018-01-16 Thread Jeff Law
On 01/16/2018 06:41 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:16:13PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 12/16/2017 02:03 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> In PR83424 combine's move_deaths puts a REG_DEAD not in the wrong place >>> because dead_or_set_regno_p does not account for

Re: [PATCH] rtlanal: dead_or_set_regno_p should handle CLOBBER (PR83424)

2018-01-16 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:16:13PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 12/16/2017 02:03 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > In PR83424 combine's move_deaths puts a REG_DEAD not in the wrong place > > because dead_or_set_regno_p does not account for CLOBBER insns. This > > fixes it. > > > > Bootstrapped

Re: [PATCH] rtlanal: dead_or_set_regno_p should handle CLOBBER (PR83424)

2017-12-18 Thread Jeff Law
On 12/16/2017 02:03 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > In PR83424 combine's move_deaths puts a REG_DEAD not in the wrong place > because dead_or_set_regno_p does not account for CLOBBER insns. This > fixes it. > > Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64} and on x86_64-linux. > Is this

[PATCH] rtlanal: dead_or_set_regno_p should handle CLOBBER (PR83424)

2017-12-16 Thread Segher Boessenkool
In PR83424 combine's move_deaths puts a REG_DEAD not in the wrong place because dead_or_set_regno_p does not account for CLOBBER insns. This fixes it. Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64} and on x86_64-linux. Is this okay for trunk? Segher 2017-12-16 Segher Boessenkool