This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: optimization/902: x86 optimization bug with sibling call and -fomit-frame-pointer

To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
Subject: Re: optimization/902: x86 optimization bug with sibling call and -fomit-frame-pointer
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:47:57 -0800
Cc: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <200011271106.WAA25200@hg.cs.mu.oz.au> <20001128161923.A29422@redhat.com> <20001128164825.D472@wolery.stanford.edu> <20001128174321.A29539@redhat.com> <20001128192143.H472@wolery.stanford.edu>

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 07:21:43PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> This is sort of the same argument as deleting empty loops.  It seems
> to me that C++ abstractions could produce empty functions just as
> easily as empty loops.

True enough.  In either case, however, it makes no difference
to the patch in question.


r`

References:
- Re: optimization/902: x86 optimization bug with sibling call and -fomit-frame-pointer
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: optimization/902: x86 optimization bug with sibling call and -fomit-frame-pointer
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: optimization/902: x86 optimization bug with sibling call and -fomit-frame-pointer
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: optimization/902: x86 optimization bug with sibling call and -fomit-frame-pointer
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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