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

2012-07-24 Thread Roland McGrath
Thanks muchly!

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

2012-07-24 Thread Richard Earnshaw
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

2012-07-20 Thread Roland McGrath
ping?

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

2012-07-17 Thread Roland McGrath
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

2012-06-20 Thread Roland McGrath
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

2012-06-18 Thread Roland McGrath
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

2012-06-18 Thread Richard Earnshaw
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

2012-06-16 Thread Richard Sandiford
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

2012-06-14 Thread Roland McGrath
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

2012-06-14 Thread Roland McGrath
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

2012-06-14 Thread Mike Stump
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