On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:44 AM Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Thanks for looking at this. > > "H.J. Lu" writes: > > commit 1bcb4c4faa4bd6b1c917c75b100d618faf9e628c > > Author: Richard Sandiford > > Date: Wed Oct 2 07:37:10 2019 +0000 > > > > [LRA] Don't make eliminable registers live (PR91957) > > > > didn't make eliminable registers live which breaks > > > > register void *cur_pro asm("reg"); > > > > where "reg" is an eliminable register. Make fixed eliminable registers > > live to fix it. > > I don't think fixedness itself is the issue here: it's usual for at > least some registers involved in eliminations to be fixed registers. > > I think what makes this case different is instead that cur_pro/ebp > is a global register. But IMO things have already gone wrong if we > think that a global register is eliminable. > > So I wonder if instead we should check global_regs at the beginning of: > > for (i = 0; i < fp_reg_count; i++) > if (!TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (crtl->asm_clobbers, > HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i)) > { > SET_HARD_REG_BIT (eliminable_regset, > HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i); > if (frame_pointer_needed) > SET_HARD_REG_BIT (ira_no_alloc_regs, > HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i); > } > else if (frame_pointer_needed) > error ("%s cannot be used in % here", > reg_names[HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i]); > else > df_set_regs_ever_live (HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i, true); > > (ira_setup_eliminable_regset), and handle the global_regs[] case in > the same way as the else case, i.e. short-circuiting both of the ifs. > Like this? Thanks. -- H.J.