Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

Thanks muchly!

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

On 17/07/12 21:42, Roland McGrath wrote: > Richard, here is the patch against the current trunk, as I promised > last week in Prague. Please apply. > Done. I've tweaked the comments slightly, but the functional modification is unchanged. R. > > Thanks, > Roland > > > gcc/ > 2012-07-17 Rol

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

ping?

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

Richard, here is the patch against the current trunk, as I promised last week in Prague. Please apply. Thanks, Roland gcc/ 2012-07-17 Roland McGrath * config/arm/arm.c (arm_get_frame_offsets): Never use a fixed register as the extra register to save/restore for stack-alignm

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: > OK then.  If you like the original patch, would you like to commit it for me? ping?

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

OK then. If you like the original patch, would you like to commit it for me? Thanks, Roland

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

On 16/06/12 13:42, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Roland McGrath writes: >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >>> On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: But if e.g. I use -ffixed-r9 then I think it's a reasonable expectation that no code is generated that touch

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

Roland McGrath writes: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: >>> But if e.g. I use -ffixed-r9 then I think it's a reasonable expectation >>> that no code is generated that touches r9 in any way, shape, or form. >> >> Also, I ca

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

Here's the version of the change that incorporates Mike's suggestion. Thanks, Roland gcc/ 2012-06-14 Roland McGrath * config/arm/arm.c (arm_get_frame_offsets): Never use a fixed register as the extra register to save/restore for stack-alignment padding. diff --git a/gcc/con

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: >> But if e.g. I use -ffixed-r9 then I think it's a reasonable expectation >> that no code is generated that touches r9 in any way, shape, or form. > > Also, I can't help but wonder if global_r

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: > But if e.g. I use -ffixed-r9 then I think it's a reasonable expectation > that no code is generated that touches r9 in any way, shape, or form. Also, I can't help but wonder if global_regs is respected. In theory, people are allowed to decla

[PATCH] ARM: exclude fixed_regs for stack-alignment save/restore

When the ARM compiler needs to ensure the stack pointer stays aligned and it's already doing a multi-register push/pop in the prologue and epilogue, it chooses some arbitrary register to add to the register set in that push and pop just to increase the size of the stack used by 4 bytes. This is pr