On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 08:18:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I wonder if this is a good case for general-regs-only instead? At
> > least no-sse cannot be functionally equivalent (since then we would
> > not have needed general-regs-only ...).
>
> I think general-regs-only is approx. equivalent to no-mmx,no-sse,
> we don't really need/want mmx in the unwinder I guess.
>
> The following seems to work fine too, regtested with
> -O2 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -mstackrealign in {C,CXX,XC,TC}FLAGS on i686-linux
> (where without the patch it fails to build).
LGTM.
> 2022-03-09 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR target/104781
> * config/i386/i386.h (LIBGCC2_UNWIND_ATTRIBUTE): Define for ia32.
>
> --- gcc/config/i386/i386.h.jj 2022-02-25 21:59:29.356291326 +0100
> +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.h 2022-03-09 10:00:38.242376504 +0100
> @@ -2848,6 +2848,12 @@ extern enum attr_cpu ix86_schedule;
> #define NUM_X86_64_MS_CLOBBERED_REGS 12
> #endif
>
> +/* __builtin_eh_return can't handle stack realignment, so restrict to
> + general regs in 32-bit libgcc functions that call it. */
> +#ifndef __x86_64__
> +#define LIBGCC2_UNWIND_ATTRIBUTE __attribute__((target
> ("general-regs-only")))
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> Local variables:
> version-control: t
>
>
> Jakub
>
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Ivo Totev; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
