From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98502 invoked by alias); 18 May 2016 22:13:31 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 98490 invoked by uid 89); 18 May 2016 22:13:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 18 May 2016 22:13:29 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u4IMDPJY010073; Wed, 18 May 2016 17:13:25 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id u4IMDP5m010072; Wed, 18 May 2016 17:13:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 22:13:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] function: Factor out make_*logue_seq Message-ID: <20160518221325.GB8384@gate.crashing.org> References: <213485283eede9da12b217737d95fc8f5c4be442.1463428211.git.segher@kernel.crashing.org> <20160518181139.GA24289@gate.crashing.org> <20160518183516.GB24289@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160518183516.GB24289@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg01420.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:35:16PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:20:29AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > > >> > * function.c (make_split_prologue_seq, make_prologue_seq, > > >> > make_epilogue_seq): New functions, factored out from... > > >> > (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Here. > > >> > > >> It breaks x86: > > > > > > Are you sure it is this patch causing it? As noted, it was tested on x86. > > > > I am pretty sure. How did you test it on x86? > > "make -k check". I'll test 32-bit now. Actually, it also fails on 64 bit. It passed my testing because it does not fail together with patch 3/3, and does not fail on powerpc at all. Segher