This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Porting libsanitizer to aarch64
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:08:19 -0700
- Subject: Re: Porting libsanitizer to aarch64
- References: <CAKdteOa-UDeo5zDwCeYSydu0K-WqmTjPgj3sYUpKrc0YPoncCg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130521154426 dot GA1377 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAGQ9bdyXCWDt0FF4+F5_4LbW7XcZACczKfHhr28nnwk96rf5Mw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130522074341 dot GC1377 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <519D2839 dot 5070602 at redhat dot com> <519E43AD dot 60002 at arm dot com>
On 05/23/2013 09:28 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Doing that would add significantly to the cost of setting up the frame.
It shouldn't...
>
> FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
> Define this macro to nonzero value if the addresses of local variable slots are
> at negative offsets from the frame pointer.
Yes, but that's FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM, not HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM, i.e. the
SOFT frame pointer. After register elimination there should be zero
differences in the local frame except for the actual order of the local variables.
r~