> From: Eric Botcazou
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:09:48 +0200
> > @@ -2618,6 +2643,16 @@ fill_slots_from_thread (rtx_jump_insn *insn, rtx
> > condition, lose = 1;
> >mark_set_resources (trial, , 0, MARK_SRC_DEST_CALL);
> >mark_referenced_resources (trial, , true);
> > + if
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:24:18 +0200
> > > @@ -2618,6 +2643,16 @@ fill_slots_from_thread (rtx_jump_insn *insn, rtx
> > > condition, lose = 1;
> > >mark_set_resources (trial, , 0, MARK_SRC_DEST_CALL);
> > >mark_referenced_resources (trial, , true);
>
> From: Eric Botcazou
> CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org"
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:09:48 +0200
> received-spf: None (smtp1.axis.com: no sender authenticity information
> available from domain of postmas...@mail-wr1-f54.google.com) identity=helo;
> client-ip=209.85.221.54;
> @@ -2618,6 +2643,16 @@ fill_slots_from_thread (rtx_jump_insn *insn, rtx
> condition, lose = 1;
>mark_set_resources (trial, , 0, MARK_SRC_DEST_CALL);
>mark_referenced_resources (trial, , true);
> + if (filter_flags)
> + {
> + mark_set_resources (trial, , 0,
On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 07:27 +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Originally I thought to bootstrap this patch on MIPS and SPARC
> since they're both delayed-branch-slot targets but I
> reconsidered, as neither is a TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM target. It
> seems only visium and CRIS has this
Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches writes:
>> > @@ -2411,6 +2411,21 @@ fill_slots_from_thread (rtx_jump_insn *insn, rtx
>> > condition,
>> >CLEAR_RESOURCE ();
>> >CLEAR_RESOURCE ();
>> >
>> > + /* Handle the flags register specially, to be able to accept a
>> > + candidate that
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:30:56 +0200
> Anything I once knew about reorg.c has long since faded away, but since
> noone else has reviewed it...
Thanks. I forgot to add PATCH and/or RFA: in the subject and
forgot to CC Eric, assuming he's interested (I did CC him as
Anything I once knew about reorg.c has long since faded away, but since
noone else has reviewed it…
Do you know what guarantees that REG_DEAD and REG_UNUSED notes are
reliable during reorg.c? It was written at a time when passes were
expected to keep the notes up-to-date, but that's not true
Originally I thought to bootstrap this patch on MIPS and SPARC
since they're both delayed-branch-slot targets but I
reconsidered, as neither is a TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM target. It
seems only visium and CRIS has this feature set, and I see no
trace of visium in neither newlib nor the simulator next
