Denis Chertykov wrote: > Georg-Johann Lay: >> Denis Chertykov schrieb: >> >> 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.
The addressing is/was connected to spill fails: -mstrict-X increased register pressure so that there were spill fails if -fcaller-saves was turned on, too. So the question is: will -mstrict-X work together with -fcaller-saves without raising spill fails in difficult reload situations? If -mstrict-X is "safe" in the way that it does not lead to spill fails because reload cannot cope with the few address registers, then we could turn on -mstrict-X by default and get rid of fake addressing. The reason why -mstrict-X is not on per default was that the risk of spill fails was estimated as too high (no problem of mstrict-X but of reload). Johann
