http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
--- Comment #6 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com <stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com> 2013-02-07 20:24:07 UTC --- On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:04 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote: > The real way to get the prior behaviour without reverting the patch is to > either explicitly mark parameters so we can check for them in this one hunk of > code. That is what I did in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg00847.html > Or to create a helper function in a suitable location that can map from > a reg to its decl, then check if it's a parameter. Given that flags in the > main rtl structures are generally scarce, I think the latter is a better > solution given how rarely we need to make this distinction. I used an rtl flag because I could make one available. Structures on the side always make me nervous, they tend to be fragile and hard to update. > It's unfortunate that this P1 regression was left languishing, half analyzed > in > our tree for 6+ months ;( Not true: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg00847.html It's unfortunate that the patch was never reviewed.
