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: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c

From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:36:35 +0930
Subject: Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
References: <20050829142016.GA2687@bubble.grove.modra.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508291602000.12296@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <5100bee0ddfccf7f926a25b68804c8aa@physics.uc.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508291633340.12296@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 04:46:14PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>  I can't check what __builtin_frame_address(0) returns in this case for 
> this target -- is it the frame address of the caller?  If so, then the 
> change is legitimate indeed.  Thanks for the fix.

I get the caller's frame minus 48.  Is __builtin_frame_address(0) well
defined for functions without a frame?  I agree that returning the
caller's frame probably makes sense, but is this worth fixing?

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

References:
- gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Maciej W. Rozycki
- Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Maciej W. Rozycki

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