Hi Richard, Thanks for reviewing this fix and the detailed suggestions : -) Looks like my colleague Yunde was having some issue setting up his local repo. I have prepared one for him. Attached please find the patch. Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu. Please help install if it's good to go.
Felix > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:richard.sandif...@arm.com] > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 5:33 PM > To: Zhongyunde <zhongyu...@huawei.com> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Yangfei (Felix) <felix.y...@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH PR95696] regrename creates overlapping register > allocations for vliw > > Thanks for the update, looks good. Could you post a changelog too so that I > can use it when committing? > > The changelog was the only reason I didn't just push the patch, but FWIW, a > couple of very minor things… > > Zhongyunde <zhongyu...@huawei.com> writes: > > diff --git a/gcc/regrename.c b/gcc/regrename.c old mode 100644 new > > mode 100755 index 637b3cbe6d7..815ed22805d > > --- a/gcc/regrename.c > > +++ b/gcc/regrename.c > > @@ -684,10 +684,12 @@ merge_chains (du_head_p c1, du_head_p c2) > > c1->cannot_rename |= c2->cannot_rename; } > > > > -/* Analyze the current function and build chains for renaming. */ > > +/* Analyze the current function and build chains for renaming. > > + If INCLUDE_ALL_BLOCKS_P is set to true, should process all blocks, > > + ignoring BB_DISABLE_SCHEDULE. The default value is true. */ > > I think s/should// here, since GCC comments usually use an imperative style. > > > @@ -737,6 +739,14 @@ regrename_analyze (bitmap bb_mask) > > if (dump_file) > > fprintf (dump_file, "\nprocessing block %d:\n", bb1->index); > > > > + if (!include_all_block_p && (bb1->flags & BB_DISABLE_SCHEDULE) != 0) > > + { > > + if (dump_file) > > + fprintf (dump_file, "avoid disrupting the sms schedule of bb %d\n", > > + bb1->index); > > bb1->index should be indented below “dump_file”. > > Richard
pr95696-v0.diff
Description: pr95696-v0.diff