On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 01:12:16PM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Kyrill, > > > This is missing a second hunk from the patch you attached in the PR that I > > think is necessary > > for this to work (setting to x_flag_omit_frame_pointer)... > > Doh! Silly me - there was a snafu restoring the patch after I had reverted > it in order to > check that the pre- and post- patch gcc test results were the same. > > > Note that this patch would expose a bug in > > common/config/aarch64/aarch64-common.c > > where there's a thinko in the handling of OPT_momit_leaf_frame_pointer. > > That's my bad and I'll propose a patch for it soon. > > OK. > > > Also, is there a way to create a testcase for the testuite? > > i.e. is there a simple way to scan the assembly generated after the final > > LTO processing > > for the presence of the frame pointer? > > Originally I thought not. But then I found scan-lto-assembler in > testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp > and that made everything simple. > > So attached is a revised patch with the missing second hunk restored and a > testcase added. > (Which I have checked and confirmed that it does fail without the patch and > it does pass > with the patch applied). > > OK to apply ?
OK, thanks. > > Note that this patch would expose a bug in > > common/config/aarch64/aarch64-common.c > > where there's a thinko in the handling of OPT_momit_leaf_frame_pointer. > > That's my bad and I'll propose a patch for it soon. I don't think I've seen this on list yet, it might be worth waiting until Kyrill has put this patch up before you commit. Thanks, James
