----- Original Message ----- > On 05/23/14 02:58, Kai Tietz wrote: > > Hello, > > > > yes the underlying issue is the same as for PR/46219. Nevertheless > > the patch doesn't solve this mentioned PR as I used for know a pretty > > conservative checking of allowed memories. By extending > > x86_sibcall_memory_p_1 function about allowing register-arguments too > > for memory, this problem can be solved. > BTW, do you want to add 46219 to your list?
Yes, it makes I put it to my list. Underlying issue is related to this issue here. I have a additional patch for fixing 46219. Sadly it causes troubles about stack-based memories in some rare cases. Still working on a finding a sample to reproduce issue outside of bootstrap. The point is that in memories on checking for sibling-tail-calls we still see pseudo-register variables. So we can't be sure if it requires frame/stack-pointer or not. > At the least, I think we should add the test from 46219 to the suite, > xfailed if you don't tackle it as a part of this work. Sure I added this testcase to the testsuite-patch. I still wait for comments on the accumulator-part, as here I added the stdarg-check. > jeff >
