2014-11-15 0:15 GMT+00:00 Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Jiong Wang <jiong.w...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 27/09/14 22:20, Kugan wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 23/09/14 01:58, Jiong Wang wrote: > > + /* If we decided that we didn't need a leaf frame pointer but then used > + LR in the function, then we'll want a frame pointer after all, so > + prevent this elimination to ensure a frame pointer is used. */ > + if (to == STACK_POINTER_REGNUM > + && flag_omit_leaf_frame_pointer > + && df_regs_ever_live_p (LR_REGNUM)) > + return false; > > This breaks my build on aarch64-elf (with some local modifications)
Hi Andrew, then what's your local modification? I think the problem is we need to figure out why there is an ICE after your local modification? can you please send me your local modification and testcase if possible. > aarch64_frame_pointer_required returns true but then we use LR but now > aarch64_can_eliminate and aarch64_frame_pointer_required are > inconsitant which is not a valid thing for LRA (and reload). > > This was mentioned in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00151.html : > " IRA calls hook frame_pointer_required and it returns false. After > that LRA calls can_eliminate hook and it returns false which means > that fp can not be used for allocation and we should spill all pseudos > assigned to it." > > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski
