Re: Unnecessary call to mark_temp_addr_taken in calls.c (related to pr25505)?

["Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 8/22/06, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > So, my question is: is it really necessary to mark this location as
> > having its address taken?  Yes, the address of the slot is passed to a
> > function, however I can't imagine any instances where the function
> > retaining that address after the call would be valid.
>
> Your tracing below confirms my recollection that I was the one who added that
> code.  Unfortunately, it came in as a merge from another tree, so it's going
> to be hard to do the archeology to figure out what it was added for, but the
> history certainly suggests to me that there *was* some test case when it did
> have a longer life and that's why it was added.

And you did not add that test case, why?  Now there is a possible fix
for a pretty ugly regression, and we can only *guess* why something is
done the way it is???

Gr.
Steven