http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> 2011-11-14 17:09:04 UTC --- I'm not going to be able to look at it anytime soon, but just some general thoughts: 1. Disabling caller-saves probably isn't appropriate. Just looking at codesize isn't the way to evaluate caller-saves either as caller-saves is tasked with improving performance, possibly at the expense of codesize. 2. The first thing someone needs to do is provide information as to why that insn needs reloads. I don't know enough about the AVR to hazard as guess why that insn needs reloads. 3. Find out where insn 172 comes from. There are restrictions on the insns created by caller-save. So if caller-save creates a bogus insn, then that needs to be investigated. Anyway, that's where I'd start. I can't say enough that disabling caller-saves merely to work around this problem is wrong wrong wrong.
