and back in. false alarm on the tests from another unrelated local change.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@110269 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseRegisterInfo.cpp b/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseRegisterInfo.cpp
index cd37633..855e072 100644
--- a/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseRegisterInfo.cpp
+++ b/lib/Target/ARM/ARMBaseRegisterInfo.cpp
@@ -851,13 +851,18 @@
// slot of the previous FP. Also, if we have variable sized objects in the
// function, stack slot references will often be negative, and some of
// our instructions are positive-offset only, so conservatively consider
- // that case to want a spill slot (or register) as well.
+ // that case to want a spill slot (or register) as well. Similarly, if
+ // the function adjusts the stack pointer during execution and the
+ // adjustments aren't already part of our stack size estimate, our offset
+ // calculations may be off, so be conservative.
// FIXME: We could add logic to be more precise about negative offsets
// and which instructions will need a scratch register for them. Is it
// worth the effort and added fragility?
bool BigStack =
(RS && (estimateStackSize(MF) + (hasFP(MF) ? 4:0) >=
- estimateRSStackSizeLimit(MF))) || MFI->hasVarSizedObjects();
+ estimateRSStackSizeLimit(MF))
+ || MFI->hasVarSizedObjects()
+ || (MFI->adjustsStack() && !canSimplifyCallFramePseudos(MF)));
bool ExtraCSSpill = false;
if (BigStack || !CanEliminateFrame || cannotEliminateFrame(MF)) {