From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20191 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2010 12:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 20111 invoked by uid 48); 12 Aug 2010 12:31:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100812123100.20110.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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: 2010-08/txt/msg00978.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #29 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:30 ------- (In reply to comment #28) > The problem is that stuff like red-zone presence and size isn't known to the > middle-end, all that stuff is backend private, so I think the right way is to > handle this in the backends and most of the backends managed to handle it. > No, the middle end code must fail safe. If targets don't need that, then they should have the ability to turn it off; not the other way around. This is critical because it leads to silent failures otherwise. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644