http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49815
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-22 14:46:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > > BTW, wouldn't it be better to model the insn completely rather than > > partially? > > In particular, in addition to the arguments being copied have also the > > copy/clobber for all the other arguments, except for the sp = sp - something > > which would be another set. > > What other arguments? Does vt_add_function_parameters not see them all? I'm I meant registers. Especially with the planned shrink wrapping, say if code before the prologue stores some argument into %o5 register that doesn't hold any parameter and then prologue does perform a save, that value is now live in %i5 rather than %o5 and var-tracking should handle that transparently. > not sure I understand the need to model the stack decrement either given that > the CFA register is the frame pointer. Var-tracking should be told that this window save instruction initializes the hard frame pointer (%i6 <= %o6) and that %o6 has been decremented, without that it is possible it will give wrong answers where values live in.
