This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Simple returns are broken in gcc 3.X

To: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
Subject: Re: Simple returns are broken in gcc 3.X
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:56:07 -0700
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010730231539.A3702@redhat.com> <200107311439.f6VEdxUK010010@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>

On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 10:39:58AM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > Err, yes it would.  There's another bit in expand_function_end.
> 
> Isn't that bit necessary if there isn't an epilogue?

No, look at thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simple returns are broken in gcc 3.X
  - From: John David Anglin

References:
- Re: Simple returns are broken in gcc 3.X
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Simple returns are broken in gcc 3.X
  - From: John David Anglin

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