This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Work in progress: "Super Sib Calls"; opinions sought
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at cambridge dot arm dot com>
- To: Andreas Bauer <baueran at in dot tum dot de>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pizka at in dot tum dot de, jason dot ozolins at anu dot edu dot au, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:24:10 +0100
- Subject: Re: Work in progress: "Super Sib Calls"; opinions sought
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> So, maybe it would be more appropriate redesigning the sibcall stuff and
> simply add my argument marshalling mechanism to it, but I do not see how
> I could possibly address indirect calls without making ARM maintainers
> (and others) unhappy.
As long as it doesn't mean that we loose the existing level of tail-call
support I doubt there will be any complaint. As for ARM code, I've
already pointed out that I think we can use IP in the majority of
circumstances (though untill I see details I can't be sure of that; for
Thumb code, tail-calling is pretty close to impossible anyway for anything
except the most basic of cases.
R.