http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target|avr-rtems4.11 |avr-* Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work| |4.6.2 Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code Last reconfirmed| |2011-11-04 CC| |gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Summary|avr ICE at spill_failure, |[4.7 Regression][avr] ICE |at reload1.c:2118 |at spill_failure, at | |reload1.c:2118 --- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-04 17:08:30 UTC --- I can confirm this on current trunk r180962 with -Os/-O2/-O3. The bug disappears with -fno-caller-saves. I already observed trouble with -fcaller-saves together with -mstrict-X so that perhaps it is a good idea to disable that option for AVR? A size comparison if avr-libc generated with -f[no-]caller-saves looks as follows: Columns: 3nd = #bytes with -fcaller-saves 3rd = #bytes with -fno-caller-saves 4th = relative size gain 5th = absolute size gain vfscanf_flt.o : 21197 21347 0.7% 150 realloc.o : 4110 4164 1.3% 54 vfprintf_std.o : 8858 8840 -0.2% -18 vfprintf_flt.o : 16604 16508 -0.6% -96 calloc.o : 636 540 -15.1% -96 strdup.o : 654 516 -21.1% -138 vfscanf_min.o : 9613 9433 -1.9% -180 vfscanf_std.o : 12918 12736 -1.4% -182 :::::: Total ::::::: : 322839 322333 -0.2% -506 Other object do not change in size. Denis, what do you think: Should we kick off caller-saves alltogether? Appears that option increases register pressure/spill requests up to a level not appropriate for AVR.