From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpbgsg1.qq.com (smtpbgsg1.qq.com [54.254.200.92]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78A10385AC22 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 13:53:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 78A10385AC22 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rivai.ai Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rivai.ai X-QQ-mid: bizesmtp81t1666706007trqcfflj Received: from rios-cad5.localdomain ( [42.247.22.66]) by bizesmtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 21:53:25 +0800 (CST) X-QQ-SSF: 01400000002000D0K000B00A0000000 X-QQ-FEAT: eYFcRngxZtQP4mKnzX2Y4wwbwPWwGbuqKlkgcaYAoJ2BIR+Qktn4QjnVOaU9m VLtoo3l0DskNc86dTHKPmltXj6zEh7kHNoHtSTg/D912I3zoeJoXQwUTtKl3x7m1waaVN+m vxC2OznfdgMLVfdp4rdkR8k9jSyif9TkvwX3/bHspYQbkhHLtj/kbG/N7Dkm3XxZ/XnHFAA AXWYElbbXXwH5lG+HA89Lg0XFQ8XQgF0PR/9nW3kxwjbZfa0MiHibxVGdAsrjDbzR3VV7dz 9UMRZMvZpeHBkHJfnbqcmOXWji8clWhb8kuKIrC+4uWVMU7M1layjBDIcAX8Awbh6kHfQJA X3vbQZJwktB0H/OOp2bwVqbsWIheU7EpU1SlFFytAq6mIfbddQje7EuI0w8xIESnARC+xc8 53qUsscb9d0= X-QQ-GoodBg: 2 From: juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: kito.cheng@gmail.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, Ju-Zhe Zhong Subject: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix a mistake in previous patch. Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 21:53:23 +0800 Message-Id: <20221025135323.98303-1-juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.36.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520 Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:rivai.ai:qybglogicsvr:qybglogicsvr7 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: From: Ju-Zhe Zhong I noticed that I have made a mistake in previous patch: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/20220817071950.271762-1-juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai/ The previous statement before this patch: bool need_barrier_p = (get_frame_size () + cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset) != 0; However, I changed it in the previous patch: bool need_barrier_p = known_ne (get_frame_size (), cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset); This is incorrect. Now, I correct this statement in this patch. gcc/ChangeLog: * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_expand_epilogue): Fix statement. --- gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc index 08354a19c05..50ef38438a2 100644 --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc @@ -5028,8 +5028,8 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) rtx insn; /* We need to add memory barrier to prevent read from deallocated stack. */ - bool need_barrier_p - = known_ne (get_frame_size (), cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset); + bool need_barrier_p = known_ne (get_frame_size () + + cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset, 0); if (cfun->machine->naked_p) { -- 2.36.1