This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] SPARC psABI fix, callee returns struct checking.
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, davem at redhat dot com, jakub at redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:57:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] SPARC psABI fix, callee returns struct checking.
- References: <20060308223803.GA11591@lios> <200603161939.24504.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <20060320215325.GB3831@lios> <200603220814.36477.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <20060322214528.GA7777@lios> <20060322222125.GA2408@redhat.com> <20060329190141.GE20054@lios> <442D8C62.4050009@codesourcery.com>
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 12:09:06PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:21:25PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> Supposing that you actually need the unspec at all. I see
> >> commentary that claims that the compiler expects the return
> >> address to be constant, but I'd like some explanation as to
> >> why and where.
> >
> > Ping?
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01490.html
>
> In reviewing the audit trail, I see that David Miller signed off on the
> SPARC part of an earlier version of the patch, and there have been no
> changes since that point, except to remove an unspec you didn't need.
> The machine-independent part of the patch is now minimal; you're passing
> "2" instead of "1", and since that parameter is documented as a boolean,
> that should be a safe change for other back ends.
>
> So, I think this patch is OK. If you do not hear objections from the
> SPARC maintainers or RTH by close-of-business Monday, this patch is OK.
Checked into mainline.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
Carlos O'Donell
CodeSourcery
carlos@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x716