> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:39:28AM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > >> Shall we also disable argument accumulation for cores? It seems we won't > > >> solve the IRA issues, right? > > > You mean LRA issues here, right? If you are starting to use > > > no-accumulate-outgoing-args much more often than in the past, I think > > > the problem that LRA forces a frame pointer in that case is much more > > > important now (or has that been fixed in the mean time?). Vlad? > > > > > > > > I guess it is serious. So it should fix this for gcc-4.9 in any case. > > I'd say it need 1-2 week of my work. Right now I am stiil thinking how > > to better approach to the implementation of it in LRA. > > That would be nice. Given that it is a regression from 4.7 anyway, it can > be fixed in stage3 too, but preferrably sooner than later, so that there is > some time to tune the backend tunables.
Sounds good. I do not think it is critical - we can always just keep argument accumulation on as we did for 4.8 and probably few earlier releases, but it would be really nice to fix this the correct way. Thank you! Honza > > Jakub
