From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14600 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2007 13:55:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 14591 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2007 13:55:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from province.act-europe.fr (HELO province.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:54:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBAC165301; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:54:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from province.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (province.act-europe.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id seYmFlSAbQr8; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:54:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (dyn-88-122-76-102.ppp.tiscali.fr [88.122.76.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACA61652AC; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:54:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: PR/32004, tree-ssa caused in/out asm constraints to often need reloads Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Andrew Pinski , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Mark Mitchell References: <468CC82F.2060702@lu.unisi.ch> <200707091455.31718.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <469231B2.3010503@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <469231B2.3010503@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707091559.39842.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00803.txt.bz2 > I do believe the patch is trivial (note I didn't say obvious) if you > investigated the failure mode. I'd have said the opposite (it's an obvious fix but not a trivial change, because of the quirks of the dataflow engine) but I'm not a native speaker. > Otherwise, I would very much prefer fixing PR21291/PR32004, which is as > bad a regression as the one I introduced. Of course, I'm not meaning > I'm *not* sorry to have introduced a regression. But PR21291/PR32004 was reported against 4.3 only! A testcase was later found that fails with all 4.x compilers, but AFAICS it was not reported by a user. So I still think that this patch should not have been put on the 4.1 branch. -- Eric Botcazou