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: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:39:02 -0700
Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
References: <20101026211731.GA3834@intel.com> <AANLkTim_MiLrT3QKaM98mZaeCQ+Kf8HcJPxdz_mc+etd@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTiki+kMNSS-YNBdKv_1x15GA8RyTb1wpfOpfHCCU@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinY7h9wZhRSg72B2W=fQQ_AUEi52d9qK7thzyST@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=WcfPujJThTcwrLqjkB7=i=KV_E25TfnSo-A--@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> One is UNSPEC and the other is USPECV. They are different.

Except you just changed that.  Both were unspec_volatile before.  So
why not change the value rather than unspec vs unspec_volatile?

-- Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: PATCH: Fix split_stack_return
  - From: H.J. Lu

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