[Bug debug/60438] [4.9 Regression] dwarf2cfi :2239 still assert,not the same cause as PR 59575

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438

--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #33)
> It sounds like inhibiting this stack combining would affect more
> 32-bit code than I'd like.
> 
> I don't like the idea of REG_ARGS_SIZE_DELTA.  The reason I went
> with absolute values in the first place for REG_ARGS_SIZE is that
> there were too many places where "deltas" matched up, but absolute
> values did not.  And so we'd wind up cross-jumping illegally.
> 
> I wonder if the best fix is to change the patterns not to rely on
> ix86_force_to_memory and ix86_free_from_memory, but instead have a
> memory operand to clobber right from the start.  No fighting with
> dwarf2 or unwind info after the fact at all.
> 
> I'll whip that up today and see what it looks like.

Perhaps.  In this particular case I think it the r in a m,?r constraints, just
removing the ?r option probably would have done the job.