Hi, On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I'm not surprised to see one. > I'm surprised to see a useless one. > > The "perf" benefit is real, and that's why I asked for one... but the reorder > made it an expensive 3 instruction nop for all intents and purposes. > If the pop was just before the ret, sure. It's not. Okay, that seems a reasonable request. But IMHO independend from the issue of simply ignoring -fno-omit-frame-pointer to which I object. > Maybe a different angle would be for a peephole phase to just eliminate > the useless (even for those who do want a frame pointer) push/mov/pop For instance. Ciao, Michael.
