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: [C++ PATCH] Don't create an INTEGER_CST for aggregates (emptystructs)


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.


Thanks,
Paolo.


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