On Oct 14, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Kean Johnston wrote:
What does the fact that -fno-optimize-sibling-calls worked
indicate really? Without that option something really does
seem to be mis-calculating the stack offsets by 4. What may
be of interest here is that aside from the vect/* tests,
the only other test that is failing is sibcall-6.
It indicated that sibling calling optimization in main should
be disabled for targets that need to up the stack alignment,
otherwise you get the stack alignment of a lower one than
that is required. You have to look to see what changed
between 3.4.0 and 4.0.0 that caused this since it is a
regression. I think the issue is that we are detecting them
at the tree level but not rejecting them when expanding. So you
have to look at the expand functions for that.
Note I filed PR 24374 for this problem since it is a regression
from 3.4.0.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
