From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3936 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2011 23:29:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 3927 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2011 23:29:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:29:05 +0000 From: "davem at devkitpro dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:29:00 -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-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: davem at devkitpro dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.4.7 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2011-10/txt/msg03096.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644 --- Comment #55 from Dave Murphy 2011-10-29 23:27:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #54) > I tested with GCC 4.6.2 and the patch provided by Mikael Pettersson. It works > for -march=armv4t and -march=armv5t, but not for -march=armv5te: For what it's worth I've been using Richard Earnshaw's patch from http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282#c8 with my own gcc builds and it's working fine for all -march values. There's also Joern's patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00461.html which I haven't tested but looks like it should work. I still don't understand why there seems to be so much resistance to Richard's suggestion that targets with redzones should explicitly enable this behaviour. How can it be a hack to treat stack moves specially? Isn't the stack generally a special register?