This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [C++ PATCH] Don't create an INTEGER_CST for aggregates (empty structs)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 14 Mar 2005 15:51:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Don't create an INTEGER_CST for aggregates (empty structs)
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <9a23c41857b1b1161e9d02c278ba5592@physics.uc.edu><42308EA6.1010408@suse.de><85c98d4cd9d0e7435f8517e9a69ac136@physics.uc.edu><m3ll8ty00m.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><4232B7B4.4040207@suse.de><m364zxgnvm.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><xypy8cruz72.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com> <42349654.6040308@suse.de>
Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:
| Hi Jason,
|
| >On 12 Mar 2005 11:27:41 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
| >
| >>Second, the case of stack-based CPUs, e.g. x86-like.
| >>The caller does not need any push of such trailing empty class
| >>arguments on stack -- and the callee knows it has no business trying
| >> to pop such value. Consequently adjustments need to be done for
| >> the stack frame "depth".
| >This assumes that we control both caller and callee, which violates the
| >idea of a standardized ABI.
| >
| Ok. Therefore, which are the implications of this? I mean, is it
| unavoidable that
| the code generated on powerpc is better that on x86 (for the reasons
| explained by
| Andrew in the audit trail)? Sorry about the direct question.
Instrinsically, yes. But the situation for x86 can be improved.
-- Gaby