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: Indirect C-function calls not sibcall-optimised?

From: Andreas Bauer <Andreas dot Bauer at cs dot anu dot edu dot au>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:52:10 +1000
Subject: Re: Indirect C-function calls not sibcall-optimised?
References: <E17Tz8S-0001II-00@cs.anu.edu.au> <20020715145925.B20876@redhat.com>

> > Could someone point out to me why it is not possible in gcc 3.1 (Don't
> > know about newer CVS-versions.) to use sibcall-optimisation with
> > indirect function calls?
>
> One has to allocate the address to a call-clobbered that does not
> overlap the argument registers. 

Ok, but how does that differ from a "normal call"?  I guess, I still don't 
see the rationale behind it.

TIA,
Andi.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Indirect C-function calls not sibcall-optimised?
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- Indirect C-function calls not sibcall-optimised?
  - From: Andreas Bauer
- Re: Indirect C-function calls not sibcall-optimised?
  - From: Richard Henderson

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