This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch RFC] SH: Use FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD


Kaz Kojima wrote:



I've tried it for the stack-smashing protector support:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01193.html

PPC uses the conditionalized FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD like as
(flag_stack_protect != 0). Can we avoid the worse code
generation for -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-stack-protector
with it?



Yes, that makes sense.
Come to think of it, I can't actually recall why we ended up with
an inverted allocation pattern for -fomit-frame-pointer, and hence
I can't verify we still do by merely looking at the source.
The partial spilling code might also have changed the correlation
between offset and usage frequency for -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
This probably calls for some experiments.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]