| Summary: | s390x: VRs allocated as if separate from FPRs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Developer tools] valgrind | Reporter: | Andreas Arnez <arnez> |
| Component: | vex | Assignee: | Andreas Arnez <arnez> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | jseward |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version First Reported In: | 3.14 SVN | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Other | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed/Implemented In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
| Attachments: | Fix register allocation for VRs vs FPRs | ||
|
Description
Andreas Arnez
2018-10-30 18:06:39 UTC
Created attachment 115990 [details]
Fix register allocation for VRs vs FPRs
This patch fixes the issue by offering only the non-overlapping vector registers to the register allocator.
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #1) > Created attachment 115990 [details] > Fix register allocation for VRs vs FPRs > > This patch fixes the issue by offering only the non-overlapping vector > registers to the register allocator. OK to land. This seems perfectly reasonable and is the same solution that has been used for some other targets -- 32-bit ARM and possibly other targets (Power, I think). + RRegUniverse__check_is_sane(ru); Good! That wasn't there before?! I assume this fix would be a candidate to ship in a 3.14.1 if we do such a release .. is that correct? In other words, does this bug affect 3.14.0 ? (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #2) > OK to land. This seems perfectly reasonable and is the same solution > that has been used for some other targets -- 32-bit ARM and possibly > other targets (Power, I think). Thanks, so I'll leave it at that. > > + RRegUniverse__check_is_sane(ru); > > Good! That wasn't there before?! Yeah... > I assume this fix would be a candidate to ship in a 3.14.1 if we do > such a release .. is that correct? In other words, does this bug > affect 3.14.0 ? Yes, I actually ran into this, so the fix would certainly be a candidate for 3.14.1. Pushed as git commit 71002d8a5. |