From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1267 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2014 01:51:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 32428 invoked by uid 48); 14 Oct 2014 01:51:31 -0000 From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/59401] [SH] GBR addressing mode optimization produces wrong code Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:51:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01032.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401 --- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #7) > (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6) > > Kaz, what's your opinion on making GBR to be call preserved by default? > > Looks OK to me for 5.0. It's clearly an ABI change but a change to > the more robust direction and wouldn't be surprising to users. Yes, I was thinking to do that for 5.0, not for the released branches. Just to be on the safe side, for your next test run, could you please change the value for gbr in sh.h CALL_USED_REGISTERS from '1' to '0' and confirm that everything is still OK?