This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: RTL_EXPR vs. inlining, again
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: PATCH: RTL_EXPR vs. inlining, again
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:54:48 +0100
- References: <20000306020211H.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
Am Mon, 06 Mar 2000 schrieb Mark Mitchell:
>Thanks to Kenner's latest hint, I think I understand a) what his point
>was, and b) where the bug was. BTW, Kenner, I think that if Ada did
>anything similar to what C++ was doing, it was probably pretty broken.
>
>The slot in question was getting marked as addressed -- but that
>didn't persuade free_temps_for_rtl_expr not to free it. Kenner, if
>you don't think this is quite right, please feel free to tweak
>accordingly -- I think given this patch you'll see the bug.
>
>--
>Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
>CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
>
>2000-03-06 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
>
> * function.c (free_temps_for_rtl_expr): Don't free slots
> that have been pushed into a higher level.
>
> Revert this patch:
> 2000-03-05 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Still fixes the bug on Linux/PPC, thanks. It seems I was quite close with the
patch I suggested back in January :-). It's a pity I didn't understand the tree
inlining vs. stackslot issue better, to be able to point you in the right
direction back then.
BTW, did you checkin a testcase for this? I have a feeling that it might prove
useful in the future...
Franz.