On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 3:33 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > On 11/7/22 15:07, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 15:23:28 PDT (-0700), j...@ventanamicro.com wrote: > >> > >> On 11/2/22 18:26, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > >>> > >>>>> I also tried to remove that restriction but it looks like it can't > >>>>> work because we can't create > >>>>> pseudo-registers during shrink wrapping and shrink wrapping can't > >>>>> work either. > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe this means that shrink wrapping cannot interfere with a > >>>>> long > >>>>> stack frame > >>>>> so there is nothing to test against in this case? > >>>> > >>>> It'd be marginally better to have such a test case to ensure we don't > >>>> shrink wrap it -- that would ensure that someone doesn't accidentally > >>>> introduce shrink wrapping with large offsets. Just a bit of future > >>>> proofing. > >>> > >>> If there's passing test cases that fail with that check removed then > >>> it's probably good enough, though I think in this case just having a > >>> comment there saying why the short-stack check is necessary should be > >>> fine. > >> > >> I can live with this. > > > > Which one (or either)? I'm fine with either option, just trying to > > avoid another re-spin as this one is a bit vague. > > Sorry I wasn't clear. Either is fine with me. >
Since all issues/concerns around this are resolved, is the v2 of this patch good for merging? Link for v2 patch is https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603822.html Manolis > > Jeff >
