This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Support non-standard extension (call via casted function pointer)
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Michael Karcher <debian at mkarcher dot dialup dot fu-berlin dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Debian m68k <debian-68k at lists dot debian dot org>, doko at debian dot org
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:52:02 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: Support non-standard extension (call via casted function pointer)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56A697DE dot 5090207 at mkarcher dot dialup dot fu-berlin dot de> <85BF0BF8-F3BB-49F9-AA9F-5793017C7062 at gmail dot com> <56A73A99 dot 7030305 at physik dot fu-berlin dot de> <mvm4me0k616 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56A7517D dot 1000608 at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>
On 01/26/2016 03:59 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Ignore other targets. There's nothing really shared across them when it
comes to the low level implementation details of an ABI like this.
On 01/26/2016 11:07 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 ,
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?