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: RFC: Support non-standard extension (call via casted function pointer)


On 01/26/2016 03:59 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 01/26/2016 11:07 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:

Having gcc allow to work with such code would actually allow us
to bootstrap ghc on m68k again which would be awesome :).

The ghc code just needs to be fixed to not lie in such a blatant way.
Just like it was changed when ppc64le flagged this as crap code.

I could just find one bug report which mentions a fix for ppc64el [1],
are you talking about this one?

If this bug is actually the same as the m68k bug, why is ghc still
working fine on ppc64el? Does ppc64el actually have separate address
and data registers?
Ignore other targets. There's nothing really shared across them when it comes to the low level implementation details of an ABI like this.

jeff


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