Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-12-14 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 12/13/2017 07:34 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: On 10/16/2017 10:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: This is another version of the patch to fix     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada. Committed as rev. 253796. Hi

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-12-13 Thread Tom de Vries
On 10/16/2017 10:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: This is another version of the patch to fix    https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada. Committed as rev. 253796. Hi Vladimir, AFAIU this bit of the patch makes

patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-16 Thread Vladimir Makarov
This is another version of the patch to fix https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 with Go and Ada. Committed as rev. 253796. Index: ChangeLog === --- ChangeLog

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/12/2017 10:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >>> Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your >>> change, ok for trunk? > > BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:05:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > On 10/12/2017 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > > Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your > > > > change,

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 10/12/2017 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your change, ok for trunk? BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I've cooked

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your > > change, ok for trunk? BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I've cooked up a runtime test that fails before your

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-12 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! > The following patch fixes > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 > > LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are > part of insn patterns > like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance in EBB which creates only moves > and they usually > have

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-11 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 10/11/2017 05:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are part of insn patterns like

Re: patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-11 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:39:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > The following patch fixes > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 > > LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are > part of insn patterns like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance

patch to fix PR82353

2017-10-11 Thread Vladimir Makarov
The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 LRA did not update hard reg liveness on bb borders for hard regs which are part of insn patterns like CFLAGS reg. It was ok for inheritance in EBB which creates only moves and they usually have no embedded hard regs