From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28446 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2008 15:34:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 28038 invoked by uid 48); 15 Dec 2008 15:32:49 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081215153249.28037.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/30271] -mstrict-align can an store extra for struct agrument passing In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "zadeck at naturalbridge dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg01523.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #9 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-12-15 15:32 ------- Andrew, What is your point here? 1) Is it your claim that anything that is arg_pointer_rtx related would automatically qualify as being safe enough to remove dead stores to? or 2) Is it your claim that if we could generalize the game proposed in comment #7 to cover the arg_pointer_rtx's also? Kenny -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30271