Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> writes:
> On 27-04-14 12:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> writes:
>>> mips_emit_call_insn (rtx pattern, rtx orig_addr, rtx addr, bool lazy_p)
>>> {
>>> rtx insn, reg;
>>>
>>> - insn = emit_call_insn (pattern);
>>> + emit_call_insn (pattern);
>>> + insn = last_call_insn ();
>>>
>>> if (TARGET_MIPS16 && mips_use_pic_fn_addr_reg_p (orig_addr))
>>> {
>>
>> This change isn't necessary; emit_call_insn is defined to return a CALL_INSN.
>>
>
> I dropped this change, as well as the change in the untyped_call expand, I
> realized it's unnecessary.
Why was the untyped_call part unnecessary?
>> I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't work at -O1 for a simple test
>> like this though. What goes wrong?
>>
>
> AFAIU now the problem is that the optimization doesn't trigger for -O0
> and -01, because the register allocator behaves more conservatively.
Hmm, is that just because -fcaller-saves is -O2 and above? If so,
should -fuse-caller-save imply -fcaller-saves?
Thanks,
Richard
