https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88129
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Looking at the kludge, which say: > > /* @@@ This is a kludge. We want to ensure that instructions that > may trap are not moved into the epilogue by scheduling, because > we don't always emit unwind information for the epilogue. */ > > do we need the blockage at all for targets that emit unwind information in > the epilogue? Probably not indeed. The two-pronged goal should be: 1) remove or understand the first blockage 2) remove the blockage(s) for targets that emit unwind information in the epilogue.
