From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21836 invoked by alias); 24 May 2011 21:53:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 21815 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2011 21:53:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_TM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 May 2011 21:53:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546AFCB01EC; Tue, 24 May 2011 23:53:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id scG01P+SuAeK; Tue, 24 May 2011 23:53:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (bon31-9-83-155-120-49.fbx.proxad.net [83.155.120.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319CECB01E5; Tue, 24 May 2011 23:53:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [patch] Fix var-tracking with dynamic stack realignment on x86 Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Alexandre Oliva References: <201105222251.31108.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <201105241342.11824.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <20110524114655.GH17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20110524114655.GH17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105242353.01807.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01785.txt.bz2 > So, would you like me to redo my patch on top of your patch, test it and > submit? I'll take care of that. > If you think it makes the code clearer, the extra comparison for at most > each stmt in the prologue_bb is probably noise compile time wise. No doubt about that. Plus this may save the next hacker a dozen of minutes trying to understand why a seemingly innocuous code movement yields unexpected differences in the debug info... > Fine with me, but I'm not a reviewer of this part of GCC... Yes, but there is none officially, you wrote the code and the patch only tweaks comments and makes a minor code change. Let's pretend that it's obvious. Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline. Thanks again. -- Eric Botcazou