------- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-21 09:43 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Revision 131576 miscompiled 178.galgel
> > > ------- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-20 16:43 > ------- > Oops. This one Yes, it does make sense. I must've missed it, since I was updating similar cases all around the file. It should not be code correcntess issue, just code quality - we still rely on REG_N_CALLS when asking if register crosses a call, just use frequency to drive decision on profitability of using caller save register. Thanks! I will also look into the two regressions this afternoon unless you beat me. Honza -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34852