On 03/22/2011 05:01 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/22/2011 05:31 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 03/21/2011 09:50 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> Ok to commit?
>>
>> As far as the dwarf2out bits are concerned, yes but please change it to
>> also accept POST_MODIFY - your patch is identical to some code I need
>> for a new target except for the rtx code.
>
> I can't quite. It's more than a 1-liner, and I'd prefer to test.
> I *think* it also belongs in rule 10, not rule 11, but I'm not quite sure.
Ah yes. I didn't notice that you were modifying a different case; the
surrounding code looked identical. Ok to apply the following on top?
Bernd
* dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr): Handle POST_MODIFY stores
through the stack pointer.
Index: gcc/dwarf2out.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/dwarf2out.c (revision 316201)
+++ gcc/dwarf2out.c (revision 316202)
@@ -2440,6 +2440,7 @@ dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr (rtx expr, co
/* Rule 10 */
/* With a push. */
case PRE_MODIFY:
+ case POST_MODIFY:
/* We can't handle variable size modifications. */
gcc_assert (GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (XEXP (dest, 0), 1), 1))
== CONST_INT);
@@ -2452,7 +2453,10 @@ dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr (rtx expr, co
if (cfa.reg == STACK_POINTER_REGNUM)
cfa.offset = cfa_store.offset;
- offset = -cfa_store.offset;
+ if (GET_CODE (XEXP (dest, 0)) == POST_MODIFY)
+ offset -= cfa_store.offset;
+ else
+ offset = -cfa_store.offset;
break;
/* Rule 11 */
