Re: Patch to fix gcc.c-torture/compile/20010102-1.c on IA64 HP-UX

[Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>]

Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 13:21 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>   
>> Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>     
>>> Setting REG_POINTER in do_replace is the only one that is necessary to
>>> fix my bug.  I just changed the others in an attempt to be complete.
>>>       
>> The change in do_replace is ok.
>>
>> For the others, where the new rtx is created by maybe_mode_change,
>> it's unclear which of ORIG or COPY would have the correct value for
>> REG_POINTER.  It's also unclear why you'd be changing modes like
>> that for real pointer values.  I suppose if mode==orig_mode and
>> orig had reg_pointer set, that'd be good enough to set it in the
>> new rtx.
>>
>>
>> r~
>>     
>
>
> I tested the following patch where I set REG_POINTER in do_replace and
> do not make any other changes.  It fixes
> gcc.c-torture/compile/20010102-1.c, gcc.c-torture/compile/20041018-1.c,
> and gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memset-chk.c on IA64 HP-UX and causes
> no regressions.
>
> Is this version of the patch OK for checkin?  I wasn't sure if your
> OK comment was an official approval of that part of the patch or not.
>
>
>
> 2008-08-19  Steve Ellcey  <sje@cup.hp.com>
>
>         * regrename.c (do_replace): Copy REG_POINTER value to new reg.
>
>
> Index: regrename.c
> ===================================================================
> --- regrename.c (revision 140482)
> +++ regrename.c (working copy)
> @@ -357,11 +357,13 @@ do_replace (struct du_chain *chain, int 
>      {
>        unsigned int regno = ORIGINAL_REGNO (*chain->loc);
>        struct reg_attrs * attr = REG_ATTRS (*chain->loc);
> +      int reg_ptr = REG_POINTER (*chain->loc);
>  
>        *chain->loc = gen_raw_REG (GET_MODE (*chain->loc), reg);
>        if (regno >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
>         ORIGINAL_REGNO (*chain->loc) = regno;
>        REG_ATTRS (*chain->loc) = attr;
> +      REG_POINTER (*chain->loc) = reg_ptr;
>        df_insn_rescan (chain->insn);
>        chain = chain->next_use;
>
>
>
>   
Is this still pending?  If so, I'll go ahead and explicitly approve 
this, particularly since it's precisely what I thought the patch ought 
to look like after our discussions last week :-)

Jeff