[PATCH] D109041: [ARM] Fix assembly in `tInt_eh_sjlj_longjmp`

[Martin Storsjö via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

mstorsjo added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMInstrThumb.td:1548
 let isBarrier = 1, hasSideEffects = 1, isTerminator = 1, isCodeGenOnly = 1,
-    Defs = [ R7, LR, SP ] in
+    Defs = [ R7, R11, LR, SP ] in
 def tInt_eh_sjlj_longjmp : XI<(outs), (ins tGPR:$src, tGPR:$scratch),
----------------
xtkoba wrote:
> xtkoba wrote:
> > mstorsjo wrote:
> > > This change looks good and seems to have been requested (and missed by me) in D38253, but we should do the same for `Int_eh_sjlj_longjmp` in ARMInstrInfo.td too - can you amend the patch to change that too?
> > Now I am preparing for another differential to fix pr50202. The requested change will be included therein.
> The requested change is included in D109129.
> Now I am preparing for another differential to fix pr50202. The requested change will be included therein.




================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMInstrThumb.td:1548
 let isBarrier = 1, hasSideEffects = 1, isTerminator = 1, isCodeGenOnly = 1,
-    Defs = [ R7, LR, SP ] in
+    Defs = [ R7, R11, LR, SP ] in
 def tInt_eh_sjlj_longjmp : XI<(outs), (ins tGPR:$src, tGPR:$scratch),
----------------
mstorsjo wrote:
> xtkoba wrote:
> > xtkoba wrote:
> > > mstorsjo wrote:
> > > > This change looks good and seems to have been requested (and missed by me) in D38253, but we should do the same for `Int_eh_sjlj_longjmp` in ARMInstrInfo.td too - can you amend the patch to change that too?
> > > Now I am preparing for another differential to fix pr50202. The requested change will be included therein.
> > The requested change is included in D109129.
> > Now I am preparing for another differential to fix pr50202. The requested change will be included therein.
> 
> 
> Now I am preparing for another differential to fix pr50202. The requested change will be included therein.

> The requested change is included in D109129.

Thanks!

Are you still planning on a different fix than this one for PR50202, or does this one still stand wrt that? (Does this one need similar changes as in D109129, to use a different GPR register class that doesn't include the FP?)


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D109041/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D109041