https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > > Note, the r264897 change to the testcase was clearly bogus, because then the > > testcase is really useless, the intent of the testcase was to check that all > > (but the 8) peepholes did the right thing and there are no RMW cycles, with > > all the loads and stores from RA (that were previously push/pop instead with > > no other %sp changes) that is not tested anymore. > > So given Segher's r265398 changed the code generated for > gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c back to what is was before my r264897 change, are > you saying we should just backout my change to the test case so it looks > like what it did before my commit? Yes, but only if r266385 wasn't in. Now that it is in, it wouldn't match anyway, so we need to find out if something can be done about it, or if we just test for it some other way (rtl dump scan, -dP or whatever and specifically differentiate the loads using the argument pointer as address vs. anything else). > So any issues since then are due only to Vlad's r266385? I think so.
