[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-10 04:29 -------
Only a hppa-linux bug now, which means this should be targetted at 4.2.0.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|critical                    |normal
 GCC target triplet|                            |hppa-linux
   Target Milestone|4.0.3                       |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-21 11:21 -------
How do you know this is hppa-linux only now?  There's a bit if information
missing about how you got to that conclusion.

Is there some simple way to test this bug on HPPA? (Maybe add a HPPA 
maintainer to the CC: list? ;-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.1.0                       |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |critical


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P2                          |P5
   Target Milestone|4.2.0                       |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-06 11:50 -------
Folks, what's up with this bug?  Is it HPPA-only now?  Can someone comment on
the status of this bug please?


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org, steven at gcc dot gnu
                   |                            |dot org
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-06 17:32 -------
Fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 with 4.0.0, 4.0.1 and 4.0.2.  However, it
doesn't fail using 3.4.4.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|2005-09-20 19:06:43         |2005-11-06 17:47:35
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-19 01:28 -------
This also effects hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 which means this effects a primary
target.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
 GCC target triplet|hppa-linux                  |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, hppa-
                   |                            |linux
           Priority|P5                          |P3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-12 20:19 -------
I can reproduce this on hppa2.0-suse-linux-gnu with the "4.2-20051210"
snapshot.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2005-11-06 17:47:35         |2005-12-12 20:19:04
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-12 20:28 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> I can reproduce this on hppa2.0-suse-linux-gnu with the "4.2-20051210"
> snapshot.

Could you make a full set of debugging dumps (i.e. from compiling with -da)
available somewhere?



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-12 21:38 -------
Created an attachment (id=10461)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10461&action=view)
Instruction stream (stripped) before scheduling


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-12 21:38 -------
Created an attachment (id=10462)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10462&action=view)
Instruction stream (stripped) after scheduling


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-12 22:03 -------
The dumps before and after scheduling look OK to me.

There are three groups of instructions for libcalls:
1) 19-14-18-20
   inputs: regs 95, 99, and 102 (all of them for x)
   result: reg 97
   clobbers: nothing
2) 29-24-28-30
   inputs: regs 95, 99, and 102
   result: reg 104
   clobbers: nothing
3) 37-34-35-36-38
   inputs: regs 95, and 113
   result: reg 112
   clobbers: nothing

Surrounding those, you have the following additional insns:
* insn 6 loads %r25 into reg 95
* insn 11 and insn 15 load the low and high parts of 95 into new regs 99
  and 102, so they must go before groups 1 and 2
* insn 33 sets reg 113 <- reg 102 << 31, so it goes before group 3 
* insn 31 sets reg 111 <- reg 97 XOR reg 104, so groups 1 and two need to
  be scheduled before this instruction
* insn 46 sets reg %28 <- reg 111 XOR reg 112, so it goes after insn 31 and
  also after group 3.

Before scheduling, the order is,
insn 6    --> out 95
insn 11   --> out 99, in 95
insn 15   --> out 102, in 95
group 1   --> out 97, in 95 99 102
group 2   --> out 104, in 95 99 102
insn 31   --> out 111, in 97 104
insn 33   --> out 113, in 102
group 3   --> out 112, in 95 113 
insn 46   --> out %26, in 111 112

After scheduling, the order is,
insn 6    --> out 95
insn 15   --> out 102, in 95
insn 33   --> out 113, in 102
insn 11   --> out 99, in 95
group 3   --> out 112, in 95 113 
group 1   --> out 97, in 95 99 102
group 2   --> out 104, in 95 99 102
insn 31   --> out 111, in 97 104
insn 46   --> out %26, in 111 112

The groups are scheduled properly as groups, and the required regs are all
scheduled before the groups that they are needed in.

In short, unless I'm getting it all wrong, the scheduler is not to blame here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-12 22:14 -------
Created an attachment (id=10463)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10463&action=view)
 a full set of debugging dumps

Re. comment #16, sorry, I didn't read it until after going through the
scheduler dumps.  Here is the complete set of dumps.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #21 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-13 13:16 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> Created an attachment (id=10461)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10461&action=view) [edit]
> Instruction stream (stripped) before scheduling
> 

(insn/s 24 0 (set (subreg:SI (reg:DI 104) 0)
        (ior:SI (ashift:SI (reg:SI 102)
                (const_int 16 [0x10]))
            (lshiftrt:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 95 [ x ]) 4)
                (const_int 16 [0x10])))) 181 {*pa.md:6669}
(insn_list:REG_DEP_ANTI 29 (nil))
    (expr_list:REG_NO_CONFLICT (reg/v:DI 95 [ x ])
        (nil)))

(insn/s 28 0 (set (subreg:SI (reg:DI 104) 4)
        (ior:SI (ashift:SI (reg:SI 99 [ x ])
                (const_int 16 [0x10]))
            (lshiftrt:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 95 [ x ]) 0)
                (const_int 16 [0x10])))) 181 {*pa.md:6669}
(insn_list:REG_DEP_ANTI 24 (nil))
    (expr_list:REG_NO_CONFLICT (reg/v:DI 95 [ x ])
        (nil)))


If (reg/v:DI 95 [ x ]) and (reg:DI 104) are assigned to the same hard register,
(subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 95 [ x ]) 0) gets clobbered in insn 24, before it is used
in insn 28.  Therefore, the REG_NO_CONFLICT block containing these two
instructions is bogus.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #22 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-13 13:41 -------
(In reply to comment #20)
> Created an attachment (id=10463)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10463&action=view) [edit]
>  a full set of debugging dumps
> 
> Re. comment #16, sorry, I didn't read it until after going through the
> scheduler dumps.  Here is the complete set of dumps.
> 

The REG_NO_CONFLICT block in f from insn 29 to insn 30 is still sound in
t.c.26.life1.  In t.c.27.combine, it is bogus.  Apparently, the problem arises
because insns 25 and 27 have been combined into insn 28.  Suppressing this
combination or removing the violated REG_NO_CONFLICT note when the
combination is done should solve this problem.
It appears that local-alloc has different algorithms for combining pseudos
with and without REG_NO_CONFLICT notes.  Therefore, I suspect that having
a REG_NO_CONFLICT note on only some of the insns of a REG_NO_CONFLICT block
is worse than not having the note at all inside that block.  Thus,
if the REG_NO_CONFLICT note is removed, it might be best to remove it in all
insns of the affected REG_NO_CONLFICT block, and dissolve the block if that
was the last REG_NO_CONFLICT note.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #23 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-15 00:00 -------
lreg decides to do this:
;; Register 95 in 25.
;; Register 97 in 28.
;; Register 99 in 22.
;; Register 102 in 21.
;; Register 104 in 25.
;; Register 111 in 28.
;; Register 112 in 19.
;; Register 113 in 28.

and reload/greg agree (note the missing page breaks in the .greg dump btw):
;; Register dispositions:
95 in 25
97 in 28
99 in 22
102 in 21
104 in 25
111 in 28
112 in 19
113 in 28

So reg 95 and reg 104 are indeed assigned the same hard register.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #24 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-15 00:09 -------
I think we can blame combine for this bug.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2 regression]    |[4.0/4.1/4.2 regression]
                   |Wrong code with -fschedule- |Wrong code with
                   |insns                       |REG_NO_CONFLICT notes
                   |                            |(caused by combine)


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #25 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-15 00:52 -------
Smarter folks than me (iant ;-) suggest that "a multi-word rotate will normally
need all the input bits when setting any of the output bits", so the entire
no-conflict thing doesn't make sense here.

So, let's not do that:

--- optabs.c    2005-12-15 01:49:23.000000000 +0100
+++ optabs.c.jj 2005-12-15 01:49:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -1525,7 +1525,14 @@ expand_binop (enum machine_mode mode, op
          else
            equiv_value = 0;

-         emit_insn (insns);
+         /* We can't make this a no conflict block if this is a word swap,
+            because the word swap case fails if the input and output values
+            are in the same register.  */
+         if (shift_count != BITS_PER_WORD)
+           emit_no_conflict_block (insns, target, op0, op1, equiv_value);
+         else
+           emit_insn (insns);
+

          return target;
        }


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #26 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-15 00:54 -------
Needless to say really, but the patchlet in comment #25 is inverted...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #27 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-15 06:42 -------
accept while testing a patch...


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-12-12 20:19:04         |2005-12-15 06:42:28
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #28 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-16 14:37 -------
(In reply to comment #25)
> Smarter folks than me (iant ;-) suggest that "a multi-word rotate will normally
> need all the input bits when setting any of the output bits", so the entire
> no-conflict thing doesn't make sense here.

This is not really relevant, since the the insns that are using other words
than
the result word are computing their (intermediate) results into pseudos, and
thus get emitted in front of (i.e. outside) the REG_NO_CONFLICT block.
combine is really to blame for combining insns into a REG_NO_CONFLICT block
in a way to invalidate the REG_NO_CONFLICT note without removing the note.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #29 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-16 22:19 -------
Subject: Bug 23837

Author: steven
Date: Fri Dec 16 22:19:09 2005
New Revision: 108690

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108690
Log:
        PR rtl-optimization/23837
        * optabs.c (expand_binop): For a multi-word rotate, never emit
        a REG_NO_CONFLICT block.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/optabs.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-16 22:25 -------
Should be fixed on the trunk.

I guess the patch could be backported to all active branches, the bug is latent
but present in all GCCs releases since 2.early.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2 regression]    |[4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong
                   |Wrong code with             |code with REG_NO_CONFLICT
                   |REG_NO_CONFLICT notes       |notes (caused by combine)
                   |(caused by combine)         |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #31 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-17 17:27 -------
Subject: Bug 23837

Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 17 17:27:11 2005
New Revision: 108718

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108718
Log:
        PR rtl-optimization/23837
        * optabs.c (expand_binop): For a multi-word rotate, never emit
        a REG_NO_CONFLICT block.


Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/optabs.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #33 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-17 17:30 -------
Fixed also in 4.1.0.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong  |[4.0 regression] Wrong code
                   |code with REG_NO_CONFLICT   |with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes
                   |notes (caused by combine)   |(caused by combine)
   Target Milestone|4.1.0                       |4.0.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #32 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-17 17:30 -------
Subject: Bug 23837

Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 17 17:29:57 2005
New Revision: 108719

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108719
Log:
        PR rtl-optimization/23837
        * optabs.c (expand_binop): For a multi-word rotate, never emit
        a REG_NO_CONFLICT block.


Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_0-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_0-branch/gcc/optabs.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #34 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-17 17:31 -------
Fixed overall.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #35 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-17 17:32 -------
Subject: Bug 23837

Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 17 17:32:36 2005
New Revision: 108721

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108721
Log:
        PR rtl-optimization/23837
        * optabs.c (expand_binop): For a multi-word rotate, never emit
        a REG_NO_CONFLICT block.


Modified:
    branches/gcc-3_4-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-3_4-branch/gcc/optabs.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #36 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-19 12:01 -------
While the patch will stop the bug from being triggered by the test case,
it does not fix th underlying combiner bug.

Any REG_NO_CONFLICT block could potentially be rendered invalid by an
inappropriate instruction combination.  The REG_NO_CONFLICT note must be
removed
when such a combination is made.


-- 

amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #37 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-19 12:36 -------
That would be a different bug, and the fix would still be to not have a
no-conflict block to begin with.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by combine)

[joern dot rennecke at st dot com]

------- Comment #38 from joern dot rennecke at st dot com  2005-12-19 13:34 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.0 regression] Wrong code with REG_NO_CONFLICT notes (caused by
combine)

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

>------- Comment #37 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-19 12:36 -------
>That would be a different bug, and the fix would still be to not have a
>no-conflict block to begin with.
>  
>
No, it's the same bug.  combine rendering REG_NO_CONFLICT notes invalid.
And you seem to advocate  removing REG_NO_CLONFLICT notes from gcc 
altogether here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23837