This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/48941] [arm gcc] NEON: Stack pointer operations performed even tho stack is not accessed at all in function.
- From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:41:41 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/48941] [arm gcc] NEON: Stack pointer operations performed even tho stack is not accessed at all in function.
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-48941-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-02 13:40:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Created attachment 24234 [details]
> > Proposed patch
> >
> > The attached patch seems to fix the testcase and doesn't
> > regress neon.exp. I'll test it fully next week.
> > We still generate more moves than necessary, but that's
> > a separate problem.
>
> I think we should try to preserve the existing internal API, so that if someone
> manages to pick up an older version of arm_neon.h they won't get bizarre errors
> out of the compiler.
That shouldn't be such a big issue though. It's relatively
common for changes in GCC behaviour (such as extra front-end
strictness) to need fixincludes to be used on some older
headers. If you manage to pull in the unfixed versions,
you'll get strange errors. And this certainly wouldn't
be the only case in which GCC needs the right version of
its own headers to be used.
How strongly do you object? I think the benefits are
worth any compatibility drawbacks in this case.