Re: List of important PRs for 3.3.1, week -3.5

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Monday, Jun 23, 2003, at 21:08 US/Eastern, Dale Johannesen wrote:

> On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 05:50  PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > Could you add 3187 as it is a regression from 2.95.3 and should have 
> > been marked as a regression long time ago?
> > I think someone from apple sent in a patch to fix this but I could be 
> > wrong.
>
> It's only sort of a regresion; 2.95.3 did not follow the standard in 
> this area, and the extra functions
> are a side effect of conformance.  At least another entry point is 
> necessary.
>
> Apple has code that changes one of the duplicate functions to be a 
> call to the other one, and
> lets sibcall change this into a single branch insn.  I don't recall 
> whether this was submitted,
> and don't know whether such an approach would be welcomed.  Certainly 
> multiple entry
> points seem cleaner to me, but MacOS can't currently handle them.


It was submitted: 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-08/msg00354.html> and there is
support for multiple entry points according to Mark Mitchel in one of 
the follow ups:

Note that Zack recently checked in better support for alternate entry
points.  What we really want to do is use alternate entry points; that
will save even more space that your approach, and be faster as well.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski