From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12461 invoked by alias); 27 Dec 2008 12:18:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 12109 invoked by uid 48); 27 Dec 2008 12:16:48 -0000 Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081227121648.12108.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/29854] reload_combine looses track of uses In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg02413.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-27 12:16 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Is there a test case which shows the wrong-code > behavior, and which can be checked against the > new register allocator? I don't know of any particular test case. If you want one, I suggest to compile the SH linux kernel with and without the patch and diff the assemply output of the compiler. You could also try looking in Toshi Morita's stress testsuite, or any other code that is heavy with reloads and large stack frames. -- amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-12-27 12:16:47 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29854