On 2/2/19 3:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 11:52:04PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> So, can we e.g. keep emitting the epilogue where it is now for
>>> naked_return_label != NULL_RTX and move it otherwise?
>>> For __builtin_return the setter and use of the hard register
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 11:52:04PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > So, can we e.g. keep emitting the epilogue where it is now for
> > naked_return_label != NULL_RTX and move it otherwise?
> > For __builtin_return the setter and use of the hard register won't be
> > adjacent in any case.
>
> See
> So, can we e.g. keep emitting the epilogue where it is now for
> naked_return_label != NULL_RTX and move it otherwise?
> For __builtin_return the setter and use of the hard register won't be
> adjacent in any case.
See my comment in the audit trail of the PR; I'd suspend it and go to bed. ;-)
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 11:37:06PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > As discussed in the PR and suggested by Uros, scheduler has code to keep a
> > use of hard register next to the assignment that sets that hard register
> > from a pseudo, which is desirable so that RA can deal with it properly.
> >
> As discussed in the PR and suggested by Uros, scheduler has code to keep a
> use of hard register next to the assignment that sets that hard register
> from a pseudo, which is desirable so that RA can deal with it properly.
> Unfortunately, with -fstack-protector* we stick the stack protect
Hi!
As discussed in the PR and suggested by Uros, scheduler has code to keep a
use of hard register next to the assignment that sets that hard register
from a pseudo, which is desirable so that RA can deal with it properly.
Unfortunately, with -fstack-protector* we stick the stack protect
