This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH for sibcalls on i386
- From: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- To: hp at bitrange dot com (Hans-Peter Nilsson)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:07:58 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: PATCH for sibcalls on i386
> If you don't agree, why not (as in "how comes that a sibcall
> pattern matter in your case")?
I've been looking and I don't have a full explanation yet. I see in
expand call that try_tail_call is 0 and try_tail_recursion is 1. It
looks like try_tail_call == 1 is necessary for sibcall generation
(see line 2623 in calls.c). try_tail_call is 0 because
FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL always is 0 for TARGET_64BIT. What I don't
understand is why we get a sibcall on hppa-linux which defines
FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL to be 0.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)