It would probably be useful to post the actual code. The below function
emit_msabi_outlined_restore() is is called from ix86_expand_epilogue()
to emit the RTL to call the restore stub. Like ix86_expand_epilogue, it
uses style == 0 to indicate that there will be a sibling call following
the epil
I think I've finally found the problem. It would appear that if you do
not explicitly add a note of type REG_CALL_DECL that specifies the
function declaration then it will ignore whatever you've supplied with
add_function_usage_to(). Instead, it will replace it with the target's
default regist
On 10/16/2016 05:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Oddly enough, I had forgotten to call add_function_usage_to() on my save
stub (which I didn't post), but not the restore stub. So thanks for that
psychic intervention. :) But if you look carefully, it's there, although
it's hard to read because
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:05:17PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> >>The insn that's getting deleted is 75, where RCX is set. I'm starting
> >>to think that maybe df_analyze() presumes that my call (to the stub) is
> >>invalidating RCX, although it does not.
> >It looks like you don't use add_functi
On 10/15/2016 08:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 01:45:12AM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
The insn that's getting deleted is 75, where RCX is set. I'm starting
to think that maybe df_analyze() presumes that my call (to the stub) is
invalidating RCX, although i
Hi Daniel,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 01:45:12AM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> The insn that's getting deleted is 75, where RCX is set. I'm starting
> to think that maybe df_analyze() presumes that my call (to the stub) is
> invalidating RCX, although it does not.
It looks like you don't use add_
