https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105769
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105769 > > --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Dunno, bet we really want to introduce CLOBBER(bol) and only consider bol and > eol clobbers for the stack reuse (or e.g. the tree-ssa-live.cc *live_vars* > handling). > Wonder what amount of work it would be to add that, I guess main thing will be > what to DCE etc., if we have CLOBBER(bol) followed by normal CLOBBER with no > aliasing stores in between, bet we must keep the former, if we have > CLOBBER(bol > followed by CLOBBER(eol) with no aliasing stores in between, we could perhaps > remove both as pair, etc. See the RFC patches I posted last year ([PATCH 1/4][RFC] middle-end/90348 - add explicit birth), also see how the handling wasn't entirely correct but I also never got to finish that ...
