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]

[Bug target/48941] [arm gcc] NEON: Stack pointer operations performed even tho stack is not accessed at all in function.


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.


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