search for: __builting_stack_pointer

...em like excellent reasons to not implement the dangerous feature > and instead to provide a significantly safer feature and direct users either > to not do the dangerous things, or if they are trying to do the safe thing, > use the feature which was designed for it. The point here is that __builting_stack_pointer doesn't provide enough additional value to be worth deviating from the norm. True, you can only use the stack pointers and not allocatable registers, and you don't have to name the register, so it's slightly more target-independent, but those were the only reasons. Named registers exis...

On 28 March 2014 10:17, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > This has been the long standing historical objection to the feature. It is a > *really* invasive change to the register allocator to plumb this kind of > register reservation through it. Do you mean only the reserved part or the general named register idea? About reserving registers, we already have the