This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch RFC] SH: -fstack-protector support
- From: Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
- To: joern dot rennecke at st dot com
- Cc: jakub at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, aoliva at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:46:26 +0900 (JST)
- Subject: Re: [patch RFC] SH: -fstack-protector support
- References: <20050720.141152.02306452.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp><42DE498A.8060108@st.com>
Joern RENNECKE <joern.rennecke@st.com> wrote:
> The stack_protect_test pattern agrees with the use in
> function.c:stack_protect_epilogue,
> but it does not agree with the documentation in md.texi. Either
> stack_protect_epilogue
> and the stack_protect_test definitions, or the stack_protect_test
> documentation are wrong.
It seems a typo in the stack_protect_test documentation.
This pattern, if defined, compares a @code{Pmode} value from the
memory in operand 1 with the memory in operand 0 without leaving the
value in a register afterward and branches to operand 2 if the values
weren't equal.
^^^
The last line should be "were equal", shouldn't it? i386 and ppc
implementations do so.
Regards,
kaz