From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 32938385840C; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 04:10:15 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 32938385840C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1712290215; bh=r6tawqK2dGcxYe7nGEluMBXayjyYubq9Ku5ypKh3Bxk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=q74/Bz06gDKeAo/zLwL0l/ysesvhjoj7GkW48pzABaPf9mdsZTRU2MgD8S56LUAfw bDIXryxGjzV/cdgWoiOiQrLrAiv5rwkCT7eQm8+JA+RhrFHzK//Yg2kXWF6rYkjIEU ohwn97WqQScdXQakZVBffrzL7ayRSjg45fc7hgmU= From: "law at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/114415] [13 Regression] wrong code with -Oz -fno-dce -fno-forward-propagate -flive-range-shrinkage -fweb since r13-1826 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 04:10:14 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: law at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: short_desc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114415 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|[13/14 Regression] wrong |[13 Regression] wrong code |code with -Oz -fno-dce |with -Oz -fno-dce |-fno-forward-propagate |-fno-forward-propagate |-flive-range-shrinkage |-flive-range-shrinkage |-fweb since r13-1826 |-fweb since r13-1826 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Given the problems we've generally had in this space, it's probably quite reasonable to treat modifications to the stack pointer as memory accesses. It probably would have been enough to avoid the RISC-V bug I just fixed a w= eek or so ago.=