search for: __builtin_stack_frame

...is, therefore, not easy to implement, and it's even harder to get it "right" (ie. similar to the "other" compiler). The most you could write in C the better for *compilers*, and minimising the exposure by using register variables is actually not a bad idea. But mostly, the __builtin_stack_frame is, in essence, a special case of the generic pattern of named registers, and gives us the same level of guarantees, so, in the end, there isn't much *technical* difference in doing one and the other, with the added benefit that named registers are already widely used and you won't need to...

Folks, I just had a discussion about __builtin_stack_pointer in the GCC list, and there were a number of arguments against it, and it got me thinking I didn't have strong arguments against GNU's named register extension. Does anyone remember the arguments for not implementing that extension? My view is that making it an intrinsic (say @llvm.register(name)) would have the exact same