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: [Patch ARM] Fix PR19599

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>
Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:37:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Patch ARM] Fix PR19599
References: <1249549237.9003.12.camel@e200593-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1249551064.718.10.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1249554919.9003.20.camel@e200593-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1249556481.9003.29.camel@e200593-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:01:21PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> +  /* If we are interworking and the function is not declared static
> +     then we can't tail-call it unless we know that it exists in this
> +     compilation unit (since it might be a Thumb routine).  This check
> +     will be unnecessary with binutils 2.20 which can handle 
> +     interworking between ARM and Thumb state functions within the
> +     same compilation unit. */

The comment talks about "within the same compilation unit" ...

> +  if (TARGET_INTERWORK && (decl != NULL_TREE) &&
> +      !targetm.binds_local_p (decl))

... the check is "potentially in another compilation unit".  Which is
right?  Also, what's the binutils problem?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Patch ARM] Fix PR19599
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- [Patch ARM] Fix PR19599
  - From: Ramana Radhakrishnan
- Re: [Patch ARM] Fix PR19599
  - From: Richard Earnshaw
- Re: [Patch ARM] Fix PR19599
  - From: Ramana Radhakrishnan
- Re: [Patch ARM] Fix PR19599
  - From: Ramana Radhakrishnan

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