2012/1/13 Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de>: > Denis Chertykov schrieb: > >> Committed >> >> Denis > > > Some questions regarding the fix: > > 1) You know if PR42204 is still relevant and can be closed? > Or is it not related to PR50925?
The PR42204 is a duplicate of PR50925 or vice versa. But, I'm not sure that this bug can be closed because I don't fix the bug himself I just changed the port and now the port has a work around. > > 2) Can we remove from avr.c:avr_option_override() the following: > > > if (avr_strict_X) > flag_caller_saves = 0; > > that hacked around similar spill fails? > > 3) As PR50775 is fixed: Would it make sense to turn on > -mstrict-X per default now, i.e. no more fake X > addressing except requested per -mno-strict-X? This bug (and it's fix) isn't related to this addressing problems. Denis.
