On 01/15/2016 03:31 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The problem in this PR was that we were treating a sibcall as popping
arguments, leading to a negative REG_ARGS_SIZE.
It doesn't really make sense to treat sibcalls as popping since
(a) they're deallocating the caller's stack, not ours, and
(b) th
The problem in this PR was that we were treating a sibcall as popping
arguments, leading to a negative REG_ARGS_SIZE.
It doesn't really make sense to treat sibcalls as popping since
(a) they're deallocating the caller's stack, not ours, and
(b) there are no optabs for popping sibcalls (any more).