https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, that could be much more robust.
OTOH this stuff is completely opportunistic in the first place: it handles
only function return values, not any other hard registers (like local
register vars).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I don't see any problem with aarch64 fwiw.
I have to try it on aarch64 but it failed there at one point.
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Also, what is fragile here? This is *removing*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> What is this REG_RETURNED thing?
Ah, something added in ira-lives.c, and you call *that* code fragile?
I agree :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Also, what is fragile here? This is *removing* fragility and premature
choices!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I don't see any problem with aarch64 fwiw.
If RA decides it does not want to tie the new pseudo to the argument
register, it may have a reason for it? Or suboptimal heuristics.
What is this REG_RETUR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
