From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7900 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2015 10:22:02 -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 7891 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2015 10:22:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f175.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f175.google.com) (209.85.160.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:22:00 +0000 Received: by ykey125 with SMTP id y125so8719946yke.3 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:21:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.125.6 with SMTP id y6mr19459494ywc.5.1444645318474; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.93.136 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 03:21:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150723203112.GB27818@gate.crashing.org> <20150810082355.GA31149@arm.com> <55C8BFC3.3030603@redhat.com> <55E72D4C.40705@arm.com> <55FC3171.7040509@arm.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PR67891] drop is_gimple_reg test from set_parm_rtl From: Richard Biener To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VXJvxaEgQml6amFr?= , Alan Lawrence , Jeff Law , James Greenhalgh , "H.J. Lu" , Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , Christophe Lyon , David Edelsohn , Eric Botcazou Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg01107.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 9, 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > >> Ok. Note that I think emit_block_move shouldn't mess with the addressable flag. > > I have successfully tested a patch that stops it from doing so, > reverting https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49429#c11 but > according to bugs 49429 and 49454, it looks like removing it would mess > with escape analysis introduced in r175063 for bug 44194. The thread > that introduces the mark_addressable calls suggests some discomfort with > this solution, and even a suggestion that the markings should be > deferred past the end of expand, but in the end there was agreement to > go with it. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01746.html Aww, indeed. Of course the issue is that we don't track pointers to the stack introduced during RTL properly. > I'm leaving it alone, since I can't reasonably test on the platforms > where the problems showed up. Yeah. Thanks for checking. Might want to add a comment before that addressable setting now that you've done the archeology. Richard. > > -- > Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ > You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi > Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member > Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer