This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug debug/60438] [4.9 Regression] dwarf2cfi :2239 still assert,not the same cause as PR 59575
- From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:28:56 +0000
- Subject: [Bug debug/60438] [4.9 Regression] dwarf2cfi :2239 still assert,not the same cause as PR 59575
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-60438-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #33)
> It sounds like inhibiting this stack combining would affect more
> 32-bit code than I'd like.
>
> I don't like the idea of REG_ARGS_SIZE_DELTA. The reason I went
> with absolute values in the first place for REG_ARGS_SIZE is that
> there were too many places where "deltas" matched up, but absolute
> values did not. And so we'd wind up cross-jumping illegally.
>
> I wonder if the best fix is to change the patterns not to rely on
> ix86_force_to_memory and ix86_free_from_memory, but instead have a
> memory operand to clobber right from the start. No fighting with
> dwarf2 or unwind info after the fact at all.
>
> I'll whip that up today and see what it looks like.
Perhaps. In this particular case I think it the r in a m,?r constraints, just
removing the ?r option probably would have done the job.