http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 13:37:25 UTC --- > I admit I don't quite see yet why this would be invalid (assuming that the > stack grows from high address to low ones). What do you mean by "the frame is > destroyed", is there something special about sparc? We go from g1 <- [sp+80] sp <- sp + 88 to sp <- sp + 88 g1 <- [sp + 168] so there is a double issue: the frame is destroyed after the %sp bump and the new offset is bogus (it should be -8). And the REG_EQUIV note isn't updated.
