------- Comment #28 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-04-21 07:52 ------- (In reply to comment #27) > I think this broke gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/sibcall-1.c. I noticed it > first > when my 4.5-based gcc regressed on this test, and found evidence that trunk > regressed similary between r158417 and r158459: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg01476.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg01534.html > > I'm now starting a C-only bootstrap+regtest of 4.5 with this one reverted to > verify.
Confirmed, reverting the PR43572 fix restores the expected tailcall in arm's sibcall-1.c test case. I don't know if the tailcall-blocking fix can be made to distinguish between references to local auto variables and references to formal parameters (which is what sibcall-1.c needs). If it can't, perhaps just XFAIL sibcall-1.c ? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43572
