From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31044 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 13:12:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 30436 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 13:12:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:12:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7222CB01F8; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:12:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bw8yozgPrB4N; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:12:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (bon31-9-83-155-120-49.fbx.proxad.net [83.155.120.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0E7CB02B4; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:12:09 +0100 (CET) From: Eric Botcazou To: Joern Rennecke Subject: Re: RFT: Fix PR middle/end-40154 Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <00264351905752@mail.embecosm.com> <201111081325.22318.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <20111108074714.ayp71feie8g4wkok-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> In-Reply-To: <20111108074714.ayp71feie8g4wkok-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201111081410.26878.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: 2011-11/txt/msg01179.txt.bz2 > set_unique_reg note already makes a number of checks so that its > multitude of callers doesn't have to. E.g. it checks that there is > indeed only one set, not only one set of a live register. Indeed, but not on the DATUM. > As you can see in the PR, there are different pieces in the compiler that > end up in the same bogosity as they add notes with the wrong mode of data. This is the bug: you shouldn't call set_unique_reg_note on a DATUM with a mode different from that of the destination. This usually means that the logic in the caller is confused. This is the same interface as emit_move_insn. -- Eric Botcazou