This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why doesn't -fomit-frame-pointer work(very well)?
- From: Peter Barada <pbarada at mail dot wm dot sps dot mot dot com>
- To: Peter dot Barada at motorola dot com
- Cc: weigand at immd1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de, Peter dot Barada at motorola dot com, rth at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, uweigand at de dot ibm dot com
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:03:43 -0500
- Subject: Re: Why doesn't -fomit-frame-pointer work(very well)?
- References: <200204032353.BAA27228@faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <200204041450.g34EoCe15973@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com>
I *have* to make sure I have enough caffeine before I post :-)
>>> Is there anything else that I'm missing?
>>
>>- Changing FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER causes an ABI change
>>in libgcc, unless DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS is defined ...
>
>I only see DWARF_FRAME_REGSITERS in i386.h and rs6000.h, and no
>documentation on what DWARF_FRAME_REGSITERS should be defined as.
>For the moment I'll define it to be what FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER *was*.
That should be DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS.
>>- If you are using REG_ALLOC_ORDER, make sure that *all*
>>hard registers are listed, or else you'll get rare and
>>hard to reproduce reload failures ...
>
>Since the two register I'm adding are virtual, then that should change
>REG_ALLOC_ORDER since thoser oare *physical* registers...
I was trying to say "Since the two registers I'm adding are virtual,
then that should *not* change REG_ALLOC_ORDER since REG_ALLOC_ORDER
deals with physical registers, not virtual.
--
Peter Barada Peter.Barada@motorola.com
Wizard 781-852-2768 (direct)
WaveMark Solutions(wholly owned by Motorola) 781-270-0193 (fax)