This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Unnecessary call to mark_temp_addr_taken in calls.c (related to pr25505)?
> 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???
As I said earlier, this came in as part of a merge of one tree to another
back in 1999, not as a separate patch, so you'd have to go back to the
archives of that tree to find the test case.
But if this is responsible for such a large regression in stack size, there's
clearly something else going on. Why did this not matter in 3.4? It wasn't
that this code was added and caused the regression since this was added well
before then. Something *else* was added that caused the regression and we
need to understand what that was.