From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13851 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2010 19:18:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 13777 invoked by uid 48); 7 Sep 2010 19:18:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100907191814.13776.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/45312] [4.4 Regression] GCC 4.4.4 miscompiles the Linux kernel In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "uweigand 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00933.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #18 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 19:18 ------- (In reply to comment #17) > I am thinking in the same direction. merge_assign_reloads is dated by 1993. > Since then it was not practically changed. I guess postreload can remove > unecessary loads if it is generated without merge_assigned_reload. > > I've tried to compile SPEC2000 by gcc-4.4 with and without > merge_assigned_reloads. I did not find any code difference. I've tried a lot > of other programs with the same result. The single difference in code I found > exists on this test case. Thanks, that's certainly good to know! > So I'd remove merge_assigned_reloads at all as it became obsolete long ago. I agree, this seems the best way forward. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45312