From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32356 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2010 22:39:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 32291 invoked by uid 48); 9 Mar 2010 22:39:34 -0000 Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100309223934.32290.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug debug/43290] ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hjl dot tools at gmail 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00882.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #13 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-09 22:39 ------- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Created an attachment (id=20044) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20044&action=view) [edit] > > gcc44-pr43290-2.patch > > > > Another fix. Wonder why that insn is marked as frame related at all, for the > > drap saving the spill (and restore) generated by > > ix86_expand_prologue/ix86_expand_epilogue should be the canonical one, after > > all where the vDRAP was spilled to is something that could be clobbered before > > the epilogue if vDRAP starts living in the register again, etc. > > > > There may be a reason to do so at the time. If there are no > regressions in gcc testsuite, it probably is OK not to mark > drap as frame related. > It is for PR 36728. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43290