* Bug in reload when forming inheritable reload information?
@ 2012-04-03 17:02 Bin.Cheng
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Bin.Cheng @ 2012-04-03 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Hi,
Recently I found a test program got wrongly reloaded, as reported in PR52804.
As the comment, I think reload_reg_reaches_end_p in reload1.c should
handle case:
The first reload type is RELOAD_FOR_INPADDR_ADDRESS;
the second reload type is RELOAD_FOR_INPADDR_ADDRESS and the reload
register is same as the first one.
In this case, the first reload is corrupted by the second one, but for now
reload_reg_reaches_end_p still returns 1, resulting in forming wrong
inheritable information,
then mis-leading following instructions.
I am working/testing a patch for this right now, also I'd like to get
some confirmation on this issue,
because RELOAD is a well-known complicated pass.
Any comments? Thanks very much.
--
Best Regards.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2012-04-03 17:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-04-03 17:02 Bug in reload when forming inheritable reload information? Bin.Cheng
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).