From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org>
To: Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
rdsandiford@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [patch, ARM] Fix PR42017, LR not used in leaf functions
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 13:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DD65363.5010102@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DD273C4.6020104@codesourcery.com>
On 17/05/11 14:10, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/5/13 04:26 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford<richard.sandiford@linaro.org> writes:
>>> Chung-Lin Tang<cltang@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>>> My fix here simply adds 'reload_completed' as an additional condition
>>>> for EPILOGUE_USES to return true for LR_REGNUM. I think this should be
>>>> valid, as correct LR save/restoring is handled by the epilogue/prologue
>>>> code; it should be safe for IRA to treat it as a normal call-used register.
>>>
>>> FWIW, epilogue_completed might be a more accurate choice.
>>
>> I still stand by this, although I realise no other target does it.
>
> Did a re-test of the patch just to be sure, as expected the test results
> were also clear. Attached is the updated patch.
Can you specify what you tested with this patch ?
So, it's interesting to note that the use of this was changed in 2007 by
zadeck as a part of the df merge.
I can't find the patch trail beyond this on the lists.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/branches/dataflow-branch/gcc/config/arm/arm.h?r1=120281&r2=121501
It might be better to understand why this was done in the first place
for the ARM port as part of the Dataflow bring up and why folks wanted
to make this unconditional.
cheers
Ramana
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-20 11:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-28 6:34 Chung-Lin Tang
2011-05-03 13:24 ` Richard Sandiford
2011-05-13 15:26 ` Richard Sandiford
2011-05-17 7:22 ` Chung-Lin Tang
2011-05-20 13:28 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan [this message]
2011-05-20 13:49 ` Chung-Lin Tang
2011-05-25 19:03 ` Chung-Lin Tang
2011-06-02 5:00 ` Ping " Chung-Lin Tang
2011-05-19 14:26 ` Eric Botcazou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DD65363.5010102@linaro.org \
--to=ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org \
--cc=cltang@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=rdsandiford@googlemail.com \
--cc=rearnsha@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).