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: optimizing calling conventions for function returns

From: "Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl at gmail dot com>
To: "Gabriel Paubert" <paubert at iram dot es>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:46:12 -0400
Subject: Re: optimizing calling conventions for function returns
References: <9e4733910605230821wa313c44i3c1dd670a4ee01c@mail.gmail.com> <20060523210938.GA30291@iram.es>

On 5/23/06, Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es> wrote:

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:21:46AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Has work been done to evaluate a calling convention that takes error
> checks like this into account? Are there size/performance wins? Or am
> I just reinventing a variation on exception handling?

It's fairly close to Fortran alternate return labels, which
were standard in Fortran 77 but have been declared obsolescent
in later revisions of the standard.


I like this method since it can be implemented transparently in C
code. That means the Linux kernel could use it without rewriting
everything.


        Regards,
        Gabriel

--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

References:
- optimizing calling conventions for function returns
  - From: Jon Smirl
- Re: optimizing calling conventions for function returns
  - From: Gabriel Paubert

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