This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/32475] [4.3 Regression] function with asm() does not setup stack frame
- From: "richard at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 30 Jun 2007 12:58:00 -0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/32475] [4.3 Regression] function with asm() does not setup stack frame
- References: <bug-32475-3760@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #12 from richard at codesourcery dot com 2007-06-30 12:58 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] function with asm() does not setup stack frame
"richard at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> "zadeck at naturalbridge dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> Could you check to see if this bug is collateral damage from your
>> latest fix to deletable_insn_p. It's appearance has been tied to that
>> function in the past.
>
> _My_ latest fix to deletable_insn_p? ;) All I did was rephrase
> your patch in terms of deletable_insn_p_1.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. Kenny's original patch was
basically an implementation of something I'd suggested on IRC,
so the ultimate blame does lie with me.
I think the upshot is still the same: I don't really have time
to work on this, and given that what I suggested was either wrong,
or exposed some other latent problem, I think reverting the patch
is the correct thing to do under the circumstances. I suggest that
someone else looks at the problem that the patch was trying to solve
(which AIUI was a pessimisation rather than a wrong-code bug).
Richard
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32475