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: [arm] possible bug in G++ 3.4.x

From: Petko Manolov <petkan at nucleusys dot com>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Vladimir Ivanov <vladitx at nucleusys dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pbrook at codesourcery dot com
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:29:53 +0200 (EET)
Subject: Re: [arm] possible bug in G++ 3.4.x
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502281432160.4109@zztop.nucleusys.com><1109673525.32361.20.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com><Pine.LNX.4.61.0503011249390.8276@zztop.nucleusys.com><200503011339.38434.paul@codesourcery.com>

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Paul Brook wrote:

The "old" arm-none-elf and arm-linux targets still use SJLJ exceptions. They
will probably never be "fixed" as this would involve an ABI change.

Didn't understand that. How is all non scratch FP registers save at the prologue related to the exceptions?

Petko

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [arm] possible bug in G++ 3.4.x
  - From: Paul Brook
- Re: [arm] possible bug in G++ 3.4.x
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

References:
- Re: [arm] possible bug in G++ 3.4.x
  - From: Richard Earnshaw
- Re: [arm] possible bug in G++ 3.4.x
  - From: Vladimir Ivanov
- Re: [arm] possible bug in G++ 3.4.x
  - From: Paul Brook

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