From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA21971 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:41:03 -0700 Received: from upchuck.cygnus.com (taarna.cygnus.com [205.180.230.102]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13835 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 16:44:19 -0800 (PST) To: "John David Anglin" cc: rth@redhat.com, alan@linuxcare.com.au, rhirst@linuxcare.com, parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: pa reload problem Reply-To: law@redhat.com In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:05:50 EST. <200012301905.OAA19130@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> From: Jeffrey A Law Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 16:24:27 -0700 Message-ID: <23885.978391467@upchuck> Sender: law@cygnus.com List-ID: In message <200012301905.OAA19130@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>you write: > Note that register 611 is dead at insn 1067. Yes. > However, we still have REG_EQUIV > notes which implicitly use register 611 on insns 1091 and 1607 (not sure > why there isn't a note on 1627). Err, no, that's not true. There is no idea of an "implicit" use like this. > This leads to disaster at insn 1607 > when the hard register assigned to 611 gets reused for other purposes > in the intervening code. This indicates a reload bug to me. > Is the REG_DEAD note for register 611 in the right place? Yes. jeff