This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PARCH 1/2, x86, PR63534] Fix darwin bootstrap
- From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac at gmail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, iains at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 16:04:11 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PARCH 1/2, x86, PR63534] Fix darwin bootstrap
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAOvf_xwDUU=gsQqHgybovAFHbn1+OVHYNBw+=xG0jau1wG2HDg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5453EDBD dot 9070303 at redhat dot com> <CAOvf_xyMLjcMcuLE8=+ygFFcRCtDCTMcOPKam=ORix=nPBPKmg at mail dot gmail dot com> <27C4B1FF-FC47-435C-8D8E-71574E4EF1ED at comcast dot net>
We don't emit extra SET_GOT. That is beneficial.
As for stack usage, that is RA to decide which register is more
beneficial to put on stack.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2014, at 5:39 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When PIC register is pseudo there is nothing special about it's value
>> that setjmp can hurt. So if the pseudo register lives across
>> setjmp_receiver RA should care about correct allocation (in case it is
>> not saved/restored, it should go on stack).
>
> So, why is consuming more stack space beneficial?