From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id BE6F938582BE; Fri,  8 Dec 2023 11:01:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BE6F938582BE
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1702033282;
	bh=/NvmT3xv1L6vK4SN4jLmCg7cWB4ThlEUDgDvzgc0ME8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ARkKzkDUbCnU7/3JpL6jKaEJDp5fzqriaTQeRdzrkYwBjEOQcndItqOvcxyb11fsN
	 qwClsJH4RsujcaOjQuTWXYRCKXm2hrqpleH4ddm/Za/UynrU5YVC3aUlyW/ddhvAVl
	 NMZqWp4JS+/1Bj2RKSTKvWUHyXXu6B1GruU4Pqh4=
From: "guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/30271] -mstrict-align can an store extra for struct
 agrument passing
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 11:01:21 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: Kenneth.Zadeck at NaturalBridge dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-30271-4-Qrb55l7mys@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-30271-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-30271-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30271

Jiu Fu Guo <guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #13 from Jiu Fu Guo <guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Andrew,=20
> >=20
> > What is your point here?
>=20
> My point here is that currently we do:
>       gi->frame_related =3D
>         (base =3D=3D frame_pointer_rtx) || (base =3D=3D hard_frame_pointe=
r_rtx);
>=20
> But if we change it to be:
>       gi->frame_related =3D
>         (base =3D=3D frame_pointer_rtx) || (base =3D=3D hard_frame_pointe=
r_rtx)
>         || (base =3D=3D arg_pointer_rtx && fixed_regs[ARG_POINTER_REGNUM]=
);
>=20
> It would delete the store (at least in a 4.3 based compiler).=20
> arg_pointer_rtx is the incoming argument space so if it is a fixed regist=
er
> it will be also frame related and we can safely delete the stores to this
> space.

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/639550.html is using
this idea too.  And the 'std' in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30271#c2 disappeared.=