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: [patches] Re: preofile.c versus setjmp

To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Subject: Re: [patches] Re: preofile.c versus setjmp
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:14:50 -0700
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, patches at x86-64 dot org
References: <20010807133333.M30939@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010807095118.B24888@redhat.com> <20010807190647.L23798@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010807102447.A24922@redhat.com> <20010807193049.C30951@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010807103722.A24930@redhat.com> <20010807194006.E30951@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 07:40:06PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> (should I remember conclusion, that the "two abnormal edges scheme" is the
> right sollution?)

Yep.

> Can we install my original patch as an temporary sollution, so the spec2000
> are finally happy?

Oh, the fake edges from entry?  Um, yeah, I guess that's ok for now.


r~

References:
- preofile.c versus setjmp
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: preofile.c versus setjmp
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: preofile.c versus setjmp
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: preofile.c versus setjmp
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [patches] Re: preofile.c versus setjmp
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [patches] Re: preofile.c versus setjmp
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [patches] Re: preofile.c versus setjmp
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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