This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Expansion of __builtin_frame_address
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:20:21PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:30, Mark Shinwell wrote:
>
> > However when dealing with __builtin_frame_address, we must return the
> > correct value from this function no matter what the value of count. This
> > patch therefore forces use of a hard FP in such situations.
>
> Eh? The manual explicitly says that __builtin_frame_address is only
> required to work if count=0. You simply cannot up walk arbitrary
> numbers of frames on some CPUs since code isn't compiled to support it.
Right - it's the result of __builtin_frame_address (0) we're looking at
here.
Mark's latest change seems logical to me: the user has asked for the
frame address, so hadn't we better arrange that there's a frame?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery