On 01/22/2016 12:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/21/2016 03:05 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote: >> On 01/02/2016 08:16 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote: >>> When an unconditional jump with side effects targets an immediately >>> following label, rtl_tidy_fallthru_edge is called. Since it has side >>> effects, it doesn't remove the jump, but the label is still marked >>> as fallthru. This later causes a verification error. Do nothing in this >>> case instead. >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> * cfgrtl.c (rtl_tidy_fallthru_edge): Bail for unconditional jumps >>> with side effects. >> >> The change looks ok to me (although I'm not able to approve it). Could you >> please run regressions >> tests on x86_64 with that change? >> >> Perhaps a short comment in the code would be good. > I think the patch is technically fine, the question is does it fix a > visible bug? I read the series as new feature enablement so I put this > patch into my gcc7 queue.
We need the patch for the S/390 split-stack implementation which we would like to see in GCC 6. I'm aware that this isn't stage 3 material but people seem to have reasons to really want split stack on S/390 asap and we would have to backport this feature anyway. Therefore I would prefer to have it in the official release already. That's the only common code change we would need for that. I've started a bootstrap and regression test for the patch also on Power. Do you see a chance we can get this into GCC 6? Bye, -Andreas-
