From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36717 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2018 10:27:00 -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 36701 invoked by uid 89); 18 Sep 2018 10:26:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=ah X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:26:58 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61607A9; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 03:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e120077-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e120077-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.206.194]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A60B3F5BD; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 03:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [ARM] Fix ICE during thunk generation with -mlong-calls To: Eric Botcazou Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <1722777.YijAB52ccF@polaris> <1672454.sA1WPEYBBg@polaris> From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:51:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1672454.sA1WPEYBBg@polaris> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00972.txt.bz2 On 18/09/18 10:00, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> this seems to contradict your statement above about having to work >> harder to fix up minipools. > > Why? Fixing up minipools is done in the generic ARM reorg pass, not in the > Thumb reorg pass(es). > Ah! But that still doesn't explain why you want to skip these passes when building thunks. >> Why do we need a barrier here unconditionally (ie in the non-longcall case)? > > We don't, but it doesn't harm to put it either. For example, the x86, PowerPC > and SPARC ports always do it. > So is the barrier correct, or isn't it? There's really no two ways about this. I don't like arbitrary changes that are justified solely on 'that's what another port does'. R.