This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/10681] [3.3/3.4 regression] [IA64] ICE in ia64_expand_epilogue
- From: "rth at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 25 Jun 2003 04:06:16 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/10681] [3.3/3.4 regression] [IA64] ICE in ia64_expand_epilogue
- References: <20030508135601.10681.schwab@suse.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10681
------- Additional Comments From rth at redhat dot com 2003-06-25 04:06 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] [IA64] ICE in ia64_expand_epilogue
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 12:56:19AM -0000, wilson at tuliptree dot org wrote:
> This testcase however points out a problem. This function doesn't have
> an asm, and it is a leaf function after the sibling calls optimization.
> So there is no need to save/restore ar.pfs. The problem here is that
> the sibling call at the end of the function looks like it uses ar.pfs,
> and we can't distinguish that from an asm by looking at regs_ever_live.
Yep. I came to the same conclusion. Additionally, I'm testing
a change to ia64_expand_call to fix the sibcall problem.
r~