On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>
Alpha should be fixed -- the docs clearly state that the operand is "the
memory reference in the stack that needs to be probed". Just passing in
the offset
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>>> Alpha should be fixed -- the docs clearly state that the operand is "the
>>> memory reference in the stack that needs to be probed". Just passing in
>>> the offset seems wrong.
>>
>> This pattern has to be renamed to not clash
On 10/04/18 08:37, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/05/2018 08:20 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In this PR the expansion code emits an invalid memory address for the
>>> stack probe, which the backend fails to recognise.
>>> The addres
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 08:20 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In this PR the expansion code emits an invalid memory address for the
>> stack probe, which the backend fails to recognise.
>> The address is created explicitly in
>> anti_adjust_stac
On 04/05/2018 08:20 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In this PR the expansion code emits an invalid memory address for the
> stack probe, which the backend fails to recognise.
> The address is created explicitly in
> anti_adjust_stack_and_probe_stack_clash in explow.c and passed down to
> g
Hi all,
In this PR the expansion code emits an invalid memory address for the stack
probe, which the backend fails to recognise.
The address is created explicitly in anti_adjust_stack_and_probe_stack_clash in
explow.c and passed down to gen_probe_stack
without any validation in emit_stack_probe
