RFA: PR 70044: Catch a second call to aarch64_override_options_after_change

[Kyrill Tkachov]

On 10/03/16 15:23, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 01:12:16PM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> Hi Kyrill,
>>
>>> This is missing a second hunk from the patch you attached in the PR that I think is necessary
>>> for this to work (setting to x_flag_omit_frame_pointer)...
>> Doh!  Silly me - there was a snafu restoring the patch after I had reverted it in order to
>> check that the pre- and post- patch gcc test results were the same.
>>
>>> Note that this patch would expose a bug in common/config/aarch64/aarch64-common.c
>>> where there's a thinko in the handling of OPT_momit_leaf_frame_pointer.
>>> That's my bad and I'll propose a patch for it soon.
>> OK.
>>
>>> Also, is there a way to create a testcase for the testuite?
>>> i.e. is there a simple way to scan the assembly generated after the final LTO processing
>>> for the presence of the frame pointer?
>> Originally I thought not.  But then I found scan-lto-assembler in testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp
>> and that made everything simple.
>>
>> So attached is a revised patch with the missing second hunk restored and a testcase added.
>> (Which I have checked and confirmed that it does fail without the patch and it does pass
>> with the patch applied).
>>
>> OK to apply ?
> OK, thanks.
>
>>> Note that this patch would expose a bug in common/config/aarch64/aarch64-common.c
>>> where there's a thinko in the handling of OPT_momit_leaf_frame_pointer.
>>> That's my bad and I'll propose a patch for it soon.
> I don't think I've seen this on list yet, it might be worth waiting until
> Kyrill has put this patch up before you commit.

Posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00638.html

Kyrill

> Thanks,
> James
>