Re: PATCH: Fix 20000724-1.c

[Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:55:29AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Well, I guess the change to regmove.c still makes sense, since if
> someone did explicitly clobber the stack pointer, we should notice
> it.  Right?

Yep.

> But, yes, I agree with your analysis.  So, we need to notice the
> clobber of the memory, and not combine across that?

No, as it would be legal to just read the memory rather
than modify it.

> Or, I see that Jakub refers to a patch from Jan that does something
> different, in that it puts the combinations in conservative locations?

I do seem to remember something like that.  But I thought
it had already gone in.  Jan, am I mistaken?

> Might something else might later move them around again?

The only other thing would be the scheduler, but volatile
asms are scheduling barriers.

Worse come to worse, it might make sense to not do stack
comhining across volatile asms either.


r~