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: [PowerPC] PR23774 stack backchain broken saga

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
To: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:28:07 +0200
Subject: Re: [PowerPC] PR23774 stack backchain broken saga
References: <20050909153004.GA18783@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20050910000348.GB23651@redhat.com>

On 10 sep 2005, at 02:03, Richard Henderson wrote:

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:00:04AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
2) Next, I defined parallels to keep things together.  Like the
following, with another for DImode.
This seems most reasonable to me.


Especially as the ABI states that the write of the backlink
and the stack pointer update _have_ to be done in one insn.
Not that I can see how e.g. your options 4 and 5 would be
unsafe in this case, but those are violating what the ABI
dictates.

Segher

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PowerPC] PR23774 stack backchain broken saga
  - From: Alan Modra

References:
- [PowerPC] PR23774 stack backchain broken saga
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: [PowerPC] PR23774 stack backchain broken saga
  - From: Richard Henderson

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