Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> writes: > On 7/12/23 06:07, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: >>> diff --git a/gcc/lra-assigns.cc b/gcc/lra-assigns.cc >>> index 73fbef29912..2f95121df06 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/lra-assigns.cc >>> +++ b/gcc/lra-assigns.cc >>> @@ -1443,10 +1443,11 @@ assign_by_spills (void) >>> pass. Indicate that it is no longer spilled. */ >>> bitmap_clear_bit (&all_spilled_pseudos, regno); >>> assign_hard_regno (hard_regno, regno); >>> - if (! reload_p) >>> - /* As non-reload pseudo assignment is changed we >>> - should reconsider insns referring for the >>> - pseudo. */ >>> + if (! reload_p || regno_allocno_class_array[regno] == ALL_REGS) >> Is this test meaningful on all targets? We have some for which >> GENERAL_REGS == ALL_REGS (e.g. nios2 and nvptx), so ALL_REGS can >> be a valid allocation class. >> > Richard, thank you for the question. > > As I remember nvptx does not use IRA/LRA. > > I don't think it is a problem. For targets with GENERAL_REGS == > ALL_REGS, it only results in one more insn processing on the next > constraint sub-pass.
Ah, ok, thanks. If there's no risk of cycling then I agree it doesn't matter. Richard > I could do more accurate solution but it would need introducing new data > (flags) for pseudos which I'd like to avoid.
