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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFA: give the return column a size (Was: Re: RFA: Use


> There is the possibility of a different problem here, where the
> DWARF_FRAME_RETURN_COLUMN maps to a known register which is a different
> size than than return address.  In that case, we would have to ignore
> DWARF_FRAME_RETURN_COLUMN in the main loop, and always provide a value
> after the loop.  In that case, we probably do have to use
> RETURN_ADDR_RTX like Joern suggested, and then use Pmode if
> RETURN_ADDR_RTX is not defined.

I'm not sure what that means with respect to the patch.  Should I apply the
save_mode = Pmode variant now, and we keep the above scheme as a backup plan
in case we find such a problem, or should I make such a patch now?


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