From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81023 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2015 13:20:39 -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 81008 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2015 13:20:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:20:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1CB48E3EB; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freie.home (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9ADKUXT018223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:20:32 -0400 Received: from livre.home (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by freie.home (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t9ADGa93003863; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:16:38 -0300 From: Alexandre Oliva To: Richard Biener Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Uro=C5=A1?= Bizjak , Alan Lawrence , Jeff Law , James Greenhalgh , "H.J. Lu" , Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , Christophe Lyon , David Edelsohn , Eric Botcazou Subject: Re: [PR67891] drop is_gimple_reg test from set_parm_rtl In-Reply-To: (Richard Biener's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:40:19 +0200") References: <20150723203112.GB27818@gate.crashing.org> <20150810082355.GA31149@arm.com> <55C8BFC3.3030603@redhat.com> <55E72D4C.40705@arm.com> <55FC3171.7040509@arm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg01049.txt.bz2 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 I'm leaving it alone, since I can't reasonably test on the platforms where the problems showed up. -- 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