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: Sibcall on recursive functions

From: "Paulo De Oliveira Cantante De Matos" <Paulo dot Matos at csr dot com>
To: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>, "Paulo J. Matos" <pocmatos at gmail dot com>
Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:56:59 -0000
Subject: RE: Sibcall on recursive functions
References: <11b141711001140312g3c1fc7d2q3a25e451d0d3ca3@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50361001140908w5f743fb2mff8be2bc6ec62be7@mail.gmail.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Pinski
> Sent: 14 January 2010 17:08
> To: Paulo J. Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Sibcall on recursive functions
> 
> 
> Because it is not really sibcalled but rather turned into a loop
> via
> tail recursion.  This is almost always profitable and never changes
> how many times the stack gets restored (unless there is an alloca
> in
> the function which is checked for inside the optimization).
> 

Can you please tell me which pass performs this optimization?

> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
> 
> 
>  To report this email as spam click
> https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==
> tiLNkw7o1Ucyk7zCaZ!cAQ67dzg1qS30Zw0Y5ZKUUtXYzJog3g== .


Member of the CSR plc group of companies. CSR plc registered in England and Wales, registered number 4187346, registered office Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, United Kingdom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sibcall on recursive functions
  - From: Paulo J. Matos

References:
- Sibcall on recursive functions
  - From: Paulo J. Matos
- Re: Sibcall on recursive functions
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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