Committed with title tweak, thanks
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 9:53 PM <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> wrote: > > From: Ju-Zhe Zhong <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> > > I noticed that I have made a mistake in previous patch: > > https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/20220817071950.271762-1-juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai/ > > The previous statement before this patch: > bool need_barrier_p = (get_frame_size () + > cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset) != 0; > > However, I changed it in the previous patch: > bool need_barrier_p = known_ne (get_frame_size (), > cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset); > This is incorrect. > > Now, I correct this statement in this patch. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_expand_epilogue): Fix statement. > > --- > gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc > index 08354a19c05..50ef38438a2 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc > +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc > @@ -5028,8 +5028,8 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) > rtx insn; > > /* We need to add memory barrier to prevent read from deallocated stack. > */ > - bool need_barrier_p > - = known_ne (get_frame_size (), cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset); > + bool need_barrier_p = known_ne (get_frame_size () > + + cfun->machine->frame.arg_pointer_offset, > 0); > > if (cfun->machine->naked_p) > { > -- > 2.36.1 >
