------- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 17:30 -------
Created an attachment (id=19988)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19988&action=view)
Another update - handle -fno-automatic & fixes ICE in comment #11
Fixes ICE in comment #11, handles STATIC implied by -fno-automatic.
Regarding "no_free" -> "dealloc": The change was done because "!no_free" (read:
"no(t) no_free" sounds awkward. no-dealloc(ate) sounds better, albeit not much.
And unfortunately, the compiler cannot compile-time diagnose such
inconsistencies in comments ;-) (Now fixed.)
Regarding the failure in comment #13: I missed a check for -fno-automatic,
which also implies SAVE; this is now fixed. Regarding the (de|in)creased
compile time: This is unavoidable in the current implementation, see PR 43210
for a possible fix.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #19972|0 |1
is obsolete| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43178
