This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

Re: RFC: Jump to const_int

To: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
Subject: Re: RFC: Jump to const_int
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:02:01 -0800
Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010114010542.A21812@redhat.com> <200101142146.QAA00670@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>

On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> I think that address_operand may be a slightly better choice
> for indirect_jump.  

Depends on whether you believe the non-informative comment
preceeding that pattern.  As it is, reload will simply force
the operand into a register anyway.

> Regarding situations with more than 255 arguments for a call, it
> looks like this will now cause an abort.

No it will not.  Examine the companion change to RETURN_POPS_ARGS.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: Jump to const_int
  - From: John David Anglin

References:
- Re: RFC: Jump to const_int
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: RFC: Jump to const_int
  - From: John David Anglin

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