> I have 4 regressions in the C testsuite with -mflat on SPARC/Solaris:
And 2 regressions in 64-bit mode:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/nestfunc-6.c execution, -O1
[...]
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/nested-6.c -O1 execution test
[...]
Another latent problem exposed by the change. Tested o
> I tried to figure out why things had been done in this
> slightly convoluted manner and failed. It seems to me that
> this is easily represented with the individual instructions.
> A comment indicated that there had been problems with the
> copy to %o7 being deleted. Elsewhere we have successfu
> I tried to figure out why things had been done in this
> slightly convoluted manner and failed. It seems to me that
> this is easily represented with the individual instructions.
I wanted to avoid the back-and-forth game on the CFA offset and emit the same
CFIs as in the normal case. Your sol
On 06/20/2011 05:33 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The current code generation for -mflat uses 3 insn patterns
> which emit up two three insns (sort of) emulating the save
Lest I get sent back for remedial English, that was supposed
to be "emit two or three" but fingers got ahead of brain.
r~
The current code generation for -mflat uses 3 insn patterns
which emit up two three insns (sort of) emulating the save
instruction.
The problem is that the unwind info is only produced at the
end of any pattern, leaving a 1 or 2 insn hole for which the
unwind info is not correct.
I tried to figur
