From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 70446 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2016 21:45:25 -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 70409 invoked by uid 89); 12 Sep 2016 21:45:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:3637 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 21:45:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC86EC05AA40; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 21:45:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-111.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.111]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8CLjGiZ031804; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:45:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix aarch64 fallout of [PATCH, LRA] Fix PR rtl-optimization 77289, LRA matching constraint problem To: Bernd Edlinger , Kyrill Tkachov , Peter Bergner References: <57D6A451.1030700@foss.arm.com> Cc: Andrew Pinski , GCC Patches , Vladimir Makarov , Bill Schmidt From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 21:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00676.txt.bz2 On 09/12/2016 07:43 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > the attached patch boot-straps and reg-tests cleanly > on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, powerpc and aarch64 targets. > > Is it OK for trunk? Unfortunately, there's no explanation for why the original code was wrong. Yes, I can clearly see you're trying to fix an ICE, but what about the code's behaviour was wrong? jeff