Re: [Patch] Fix bug for frame instructions in annulled delay slots

[Steve Ellcey <sellcey@imgtec.com>]

On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 20:59 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/07/2015 08:43 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > I am not sure about this.  There is an earlier if statement in the loop
> > that does a 'return' instead of a break (or continue) and there is a
> > return in the 'else' part of the if that sets must_annul.  Both of these
> > are inside the loop that looks at all the instructions in the sequence
> > 'seq'.  I think the code is looking at all the instructions in the
> > sequence and if any of them fail one of the tests in the loop (in this
> > case require annulling) then we can't handle any of the instructions in
> > the sequence and so we return immediately without putting any of the
> > instructions from 'seq' in the delay slot.  I believe a frame related
> > instruction in an annulled branch needs to be handled that way too.
> 
> Ah, I think I was looking at the other function that has the same 
> must_annul test (steal_delay_list_from_fallthrough). The patch is ok 
> without the backslash. Maybe the other function ought to be changed as 
> well though?
> 
> 
> Bernd

That would seem reasonable, though I don't have a test case for where
the change to that routine would actually make a difference in the
compilation.  I'll create a patch and test it to make sure it doesn't
cause any problems and then submit it as a follow-up to this change.

Steve Ellcey
sellcey@imgtec.com