This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [3.4-BIB] x86-64 sibcall fixes try III


> On 27-Oct-2002, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> wrote:
> > +   VOLATILE_REGS,		/* Call used registers in 32bit mode.  */
> > +   VOLATILE64_REGS,		/* Call used registers in 64bit mode.  */
> 
> IMHO it would be much nicer to name those CALL_USED_REGS and CALL_USED_64_REGS.
> This meaning of "volatile" is quite different from the other meaning for
> volatile used in the C/C++ front-ends and through-out the compiler,
> and if the same term is used to mean different things in different places
> then it gets very confusing.
OK, I can rename these if the patch in concept is OK.

Honza
> 
> > *** doc/md.texi	16 Oct 2002 16:08:36 -0000	1.46.2.1
> > --- doc/md.texi	27 Oct 2002 21:08:44 -0000
> > *************** Integer constant in the range 1 to 4 for
> > *** 1742,1747 ****
> > --- 1742,1751 ----
> >   
> >   @item S
> >   Memory operand except postincrement and postdecrement
> > + 
> > + @item v
> > + Call used (volatile) register
> 
> I suggest
> 
> 	Call used (i.e. caller-save) register
> 
> -- 
> Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
> The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
> WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]