From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9334 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2012 16:56:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 9285 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2012 16:56:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_HF X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:56:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAJGuJ8m012580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:56:19 -0500 Received: from pebble.twiddle.home (ovpn-113-164.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.164]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qAJGuGAo024715; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:56:19 -0500 Message-ID: <50AA64B6.5050603@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:56:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jeff Law Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20121116091036.GG1886@tucnak.redhat.com> <50A7E10C.6010408@redhat.com> <20121119075311.GB2315@tucnak.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20121119075311.GB2315@tucnak.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-11/txt/msg01575.txt.bz2 On 2012-11-18 23:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I'd prefer to only invalidate the stack pointer on the first assignment > to the hard pointer. If the cselib link between sp and hfp is already > broken, invalidating sp will only result in worse code. Dunno if there > are any targets that adjust the hard frame pointer after it has been set > once or similar. I'm not aware of such a target. Though I did not audit them now. > Perhaps we could walk here CSELIB_VAL_PTR (hfpval)->locs here, and look > if any rtls in there have find_base_term (x->loc) == find_base_term > (stack_pointer_rtx), and only if yes, invalidate (and guard it by the > modified_in_p test). Sounds plausible. > BTW, var-tracking.c uses a similar test. Ouch. Where is that? r~