Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:59:54PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Right, that was my point. So by relying on unwind info in var-tracking.c >> we're getting the wrong answer for the stack offset after the LM(G) >> instruction. It sounds like we're going to pretend it's right anyway >> for expediency. But in that case why not also allow the exit block >> offsets to vary on the same basis? It's not like the current test is >> an assert -- it's just silently refusing to do any var-tracking on the >> function if the epilogue isn't fully understood. >> >> If these offsets must match on exit for correctness then we should >> assert rather than silently bailing out. But if they're allowed to vary >> then we should do our best to carry on. And since the exit block offset >> is never used, it seems expedient to allow varying offsets in that case. > > Ok then, but please do follow-up on the changes to not save/restore > r15 in the unwind info, use REG_CFA_ADJUST_CFA where possible and teach > var-tracking about that note.
Thanks, will do. I know Uli was worried about the CFI size too. richard
