This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: My problem on x86-64

From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:11:24 +0100
Subject: Re: My problem on x86-64
References: <10401261243.AA19546@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401261633090.3429@wotan.suse.de>

> But this sanity test doesn't consider complex values which are partially 
> live, i.e. st(1) live but st(0) not.  I'm not sure if the rest of 
> reg-stack works correctly in this situation, but if yes, then this patch 
> should make it not hickup in this situation (not tested except that it 
> compiles, and doesn't make the testcase ICE).
> 
> Honza: Will reg-stack create the correct compensation code in this case?

I believe that there is no need to create compensation since all the FP
registers are supposed to be dead when we get out of EH handler.

So I think your patch is fine.  Thank you for looking into this!
Honza

References:
- My problem on x86-64
  - From: Richard Kenner
- Re: My problem on x86-64
  - From: Michael Matz

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