http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #49 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> 2011-09-12 15:33:56 UTC --- On 09/12/2011 09:31 AM, rearnsha at arm dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644 > > --- Comment #48 from Richard Earnshaw<rearnsha at arm dot com> 2011-09-12 > 15:31:51 UTC --- > On 12/09/11 16:18, law at redhat dot com wrote: > >> A much simpler way to fix this is to emit a barrier just prior to >> mucking around with stack pointer in the epilogue. That's how targets >> have dealt with this exact issue for a couple decades. > Simpler, but wrong. The compiler should not be generating unsafe code > by default. The problem is in the mid-end and expecting every port to > get this right in order to work-around a mid-end bug is just stupid > stupid stupid. > > The mid end should not be scheduling around stack moves unless it has > been explicitly told it is safe to do this. I don't understand why > there is so much resistance to fixing the problem properly. I don't disagree with you Richard, but we're at, what, 3 years on this bug... That's absurd, particularly when there's a trivial, correct fix. jeff
