Fix PR44281 (bad RA with global regs)
Mon Feb 29 15:18:00 GMT 2016
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Bernd Schmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 02/27/2016 08:12 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 26. Februar 2016 schrieb Jeff Law :
>> The other case that came to mind was signal handlers. What happens
>> if we're using the global register as a scratch, we hit a memory
>> reference that faults and inside the signal handler the original
>> code expects to be able to use the global register the user set up?
>> If that's a valid use scenario, then there's probably all kinds of
>> DF stuff that we'd need to expose.
>> I'd say that's a valid assumption. Though maybe we want to be able to
>> change semantics with a flag here.
> A flag seems like overkill, I don't think people are likely to enable that
> So what's the consensus here, closed wontfix?
I think so, and maybe update documentation to reflect the discussion.
More information about the Gcc-patches