On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:17:40PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Ick, looks like papering over the real problem to me, and will no
> > > doubt cause -Os size regressions.
> >
> > I think it is very directly solving the real problem. It isn't likely
> > to cause size regressions (look how long
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:28:22PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:33:05AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:06:18PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
> > > inline restore
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:33:05AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:06:18PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
> > inline restore does not restore all registers, the CFI for the save
> > and restore can
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:06:18PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
> inline restore does not restore all registers, the CFI for the save
> and restore can conflict if things are shrink-wrapped.
>
> We could restore all
We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
inline restore does not restore all registers, the CFI for the save
and restore can conflict if things are shrink-wrapped.
We could restore all registers that are saved (not ideal), or emit
the CFI notes to say we did (which
