On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/29/2012 01:16 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> Of course, there's still the problem of getting the unwind data correct at >>> the point of the asm. I commented about that in the PR you filed. >> >> I think i386 still has the problem that it is small register class target >> and if you >> set rdi/rax and friends as hard registers, you risk reload failures. > > True, and if this were i386 code I would certainly recommend using the [acd] > constraints instead (for suitible regparm signature). But this is explicitly > x86_64 code and the compiler has 8 registers otherwise available. > >> Do we prevent code motion of hard registers sets i.e. at GIMPLE level?
Yes we do (modulo bugs). > I don't know for positive, but I'd certainly consider it a bug if we don't. > There are plenty of targets which have no alternative but to use this style > of programming for inline syscalls. > > > r~