Re: [PATCH] [RFC] PR target/52813 and target/11807

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 14:35, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 12:47, Richard Sandiford
> > <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dimitar Dimitrov <dimitar@dinux.eu> writes:
> >> > On Sun, Dec 16 2018 at 14:36:26 EET Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> if I understood that right, then clobbering sp is and has always been
> >> >> ignored.
> >>
> >> PR77904 was about the clobber not being ignored, so the behaviour
> >> hasn't been consistent.
> >>
> >> I'm also not sure it was always ignored in recent sources.  The clobber
> >> does get added to the associated rtl insn, and it'd be surprising if
> >> that never had an effect.
> >>
> >> >> If that is right, then I would much prefer a warning, that says exactly
> >> >> that, because that would also help to understand why removing that clobber
> >> >> statement is safe even for old gcc versions.
> >>
> >> If the asm does leave sp with a different value, then it's never been safe,
> >> regardless of the gcc version.  That's why an error seems more appropriate.
> >>
> >> > Thank you. Looks like general consensus is to have a warning. See attached
> >> > patch that switches the error to a warning.
> >>
> >> I don't think there's a good reason to treat this differently from the
> >> preexisting PIC register error.  If the argument for making it a warning
> >> rather than an error is that the asm might happen to work by accident,
> >> then the same is true for the PIC register.
> >>
> >
> > If we leave the error, maybe a more explanatory message would be helpful?
> > (along the lines of what I posted earlier in this thread, which may be
> > too verbose)
>
> The message in that patch suggested removing the clobber and hoping for
> the best, which IMO is bad advice.  If the current message doesn't make
> it clear enough that changing the sp is not allowed, how about:
>
>     inline %<asm%> statements must not change the value of the stack pointer
>
> ?
>

My understanding is that in some cases, some users still want to
deliberately change SP,
so "must not" may be confusing in such cases?

> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>