This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Is regs_ever_live valid in prologue? (SPARC quirk?)

From: Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
Cc: ack at cunei dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 30 Apr 2002 14:57:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Is regs_ever_live valid in prologue? (SPARC quirk?)
References: <E171GP6-0000ma-00@rev.vosn.net><xwu7kmq15i8.fsf@tonopah.toronto.redhat.com><20020429.160241.48683105.davem@redhat.com>

>Actually, this is too obvious to be the issue.
>What is the problem actually?

I don't care enough to look.  It could be related to the point you made.
The renumbering and the optimizing away of the parameter could be causing
things to get a little confused.

Jim

References:
- Is regs_ever_live valid in prologue? (SPARC quirk?)
  - From: Antonio Cunei
- Re: Is regs_ever_live valid in prologue? (SPARC quirk?)
  - From: Jim Wilson
- Re: Is regs_ever_live valid in prologue? (SPARC quirk?)
  - From: David S. Miller

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]