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 D65073858C36; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:56:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D65073858C36
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709229380;
	bh=BxkDvxXcukKRIh2PERWKLqMF7uXueOloprdoxBcgZjg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=F2hyErM+YyILknQ77l3j5QRwHBnpans2/sjsL8s9FsRXY/Nihbkq7rSoeiPP64fKO
	 bEChDQOFyAkE4Wdo/Da7gAxWpek8dDg6MtGrGGCp/zXQf2kOkaEr09K7mtYjdclYBA
	 CwxcAx+WkNe/jSS2GF9g6PVsWYNXkafoZZGWHeNY=
From: "lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/38534] gcc 4.2.1 and above: No need to save
 called-saved registers in 'noreturn' function
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:56:15 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-38534-4-hpOX9mjSOg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-38534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-38534-4@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=3D38534

--- Comment #44 from Lukas Gr=C3=A4tz <lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #39)
> (In reply to Lukas Gr=C3=A4tz from comment #36)
>=20
> > > #2  0x00000000004011d2 in baz (a=3Da@entry=3D42, b=3Db@entry=3D43, c=
=3Dc@entry=3D44,
> > > d=3D<error reading variable: value has been optimized out>,=20
> > >     e=3D<error reading variable: value has been optimized out>, f=3D<=
error
> > > reading variable: value has been optimized out>, g=3D48, h=3D49) at /=
tmp/1.c:38
> >=20
> >=20
> > I can confirm that. What bothers me, is the wording "d=3D<error .... op=
timized
> > out>" and not just "d=3D<optimized out>".
>=20
> Could you file a gdb bug about this?  Preferably with some
> kind of test case?

Done. See:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31436=