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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: __builtin_return_address (0) and inlining

From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 05 Jun 2002 14:46:57 -0700
Subject: Re: __builtin_return_address (0) and inlining
References: <1023306058.31387.50.camel@ghostwheel.cygnus.com><200206052019.g55KJ7o32309@greed.delorie.com> <oru1ohv1ou.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>

On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 14:46, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun  5, 2002, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > When converted, __builtin_return_address(0) will properly return the
> > RA for the function it gets inlined into, rather than an unpredictable
> > value.
> 
> That's still probably not what the person who wrote
> __builtin_return_address(0) wanted.
> 

I'd agree with this. I think that this behavior would be unexpected.

-eric

-- 
I will not carve gods

Follow-Ups:
- Re: __builtin_return_address (0) and inlining
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: __builtin_return_address (0) and inlining
  - From: Paul Koning

References:
- __builtin_return_address (0) and inlining
  - From: Eric Christopher
- Re: __builtin_return_address (0) and inlining
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: __builtin_return_address (0) and inlining
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

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