| Message ID | c55875d4084b4a532fae5fd540af7afb7b205cec.1525775371.git.segher@kernel.crashing.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | PR85645 | expand |
> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> > > PR rtl-optimization/85645 > * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an > insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note. OK, thanks.
Hi Eric, On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> > > > > PR rtl-optimization/85645 > > * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an > > insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note. > > OK, thanks. Are these patches okay for backport to 8? At least the first two. Segher
> Are these patches okay for backport to 8? At least the first two.
If they fulfill the criteria for a release branch, no objection by me.
On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> >>> >>> PR rtl-optimization/85645 >>> * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an >>> insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note. >> >> OK, thanks. > > Are these patches okay for backport to 8? At least the first two. Yes. jeff
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:34:26PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >>> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> > >>> > >>> PR rtl-optimization/85645 > >>> * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an > >>> insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note. > >> > >> OK, thanks. > > > > Are these patches okay for backport to 8? At least the first two. > Yes. And for 7? (Same two). Segher
On 08/10/2018 02:55 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 03:34:26PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/25/2018 05:53 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:22:47AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>>>> 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> >>>>> >>>>> PR rtl-optimization/85645 >>>>> * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an >>>>> insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note. >>>> >>>> OK, thanks. >>> >>> Are these patches okay for backport to 8? At least the first two. >> Yes. > > And for 7? (Same two). Yes. jeff
diff --git a/gcc/regcprop.c b/gcc/regcprop.c index a664f76..1813242 100644 --- a/gcc/regcprop.c +++ b/gcc/regcprop.c @@ -848,6 +848,12 @@ copyprop_hardreg_forward_1 (basic_block bb, struct value_data *vd) && reg_overlap_mentioned_p (XEXP (link, 0), SET_SRC (set))) set = NULL; } + + /* We need to keep CFI info correct, and the same on all paths, + so we cannot normally replace the registers REG_CFA_REGISTER + refers to. Bail. */ + if (REG_NOTE_KIND (link) == REG_CFA_REGISTER) + goto did_replacement; } /* Special-case plain move instructions, since we may well
Changing a SET that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note is wrong if we are changing the SET_DEST, or if the REG_CFA_REGISTER has nil as its argument, and maybe some other cases. It's never really useful to propagate into such an instruction, so let's just bail whenever we see such a note. Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64}. Is this okay for trunk? Segher 2018-05-08 Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> PR rtl-optimization/85645 * regcprop.c (copyprop_hardreg_forward_1): Don't propagate into an insn that has a REG_CFA_REGISTER note. --- gcc/regcprop.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)