From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-423185-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 102956 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2016 08:56:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 101605 invoked by uid 89); 14 Mar 2016 08:56:34 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=regreg, PR70171, reg-reg, pr70171
X-HELO: mx2.suse.de
Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:56:33 +0000
Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB91AC2C;	Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:56:29 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:56:00 -0000
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC 7] Fix PR70171
In-Reply-To: <5786847.OenCvMFoMo@polaris>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1603140951420.31547@t29.fhfr.qr>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1603111457460.31547@t29.fhfr.qr> <5786847.OenCvMFoMo@polaris>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00757.txt.bz2

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Eric Botcazou wrote:

> > The following teaches phiprop to handle the case of aggregate copies
> > where the aggregate has non-BLKmode which means it is very likely
> > expanded as reg-reg moves (any better test for that apart from
> > checking for non-BLKmode?).  
> 
> !aggregate_value_p comes to mind, but non-BLKmode is the definitive test to 
> distinguish the register from the non-register case at the RTL level.

It looks like it might catch a few extra cases where the address of the
decl is required.  But it also looks like it's somewhat overly broad like

  /* Function types that are TREE_ADDRESSABLE force return in memory.  */
  if (fntype && TREE_ADDRESSABLE (fntype))
    return 1;

without actually testing 'exp' is the return slot.  In fact most of
the function cares about function return values and some about
parameters.  I guess the predicate should be split up (a quick grep
shows most callers care about the return value case).

Richard.