From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11662 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2014 09:42:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 11474 invoked by uid 48); 29 Oct 2014 09:42:08 -0000 From: "luk32 at o2 dot pl" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug inline-asm/62144] "Frame pointer required, but reserved" error with -fomit-frame-pointer but only with -m32 -O2 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:46:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: inline-asm X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: luk32 at o2 dot pl X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg02228.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D62144 --- Comment #8 from =C5=81ukasz Kucharski --- Jakub, fair enough. However, changing the optimization level should not break the compilation. The issue is, at least for me, is not that we can't omit the f= rame pointer, but that it depends on the optimization level. I couldn't find anything in the docs, which would allow such behaviour. May= be I missed it. Anyway, IMO at most a warning should be issued that a potential optimization conflicts with the flag. With regards, luk32. >>From gcc-bugs-return-465208-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Oct 29 09:46:02 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14830 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2014 09:46:02 -0000 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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14785 invoked by uid 48); 29 Oct 2014 09:45:56 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug inline-asm/62144] "Frame pointer required, but reserved" error with -fomit-frame-pointer but only with -m32 -O2 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:01:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: inline-asm X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg02229.txt.bz2 Content-length: 607 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62144 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- The documentation on -fomit-frame-pointer says: "Don't keep the frame pointer in a register for functions that don't need one." where whether soemthing needs a frame pointer or not is not precisely defined (exactly because the actual check in the compiler whether something needs a frame pointer or not is not really something simple, and depends on many things). Whether we can avoid frame pointer on this exact testcase is something Vlad can perhaps look at, my answer was just general.