This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch i386]: Sibcall tail-call improvement and partial fix PR/60104
- From: FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Iain Sandoe <iain at codesourcery dot com>, Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>, Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:13:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch i386]: Sibcall tail-call improvement and partial fix PR/60104
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1478265243 dot 5697739 dot 1400792508558 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <AD1FD69F-389F-47A9-83F5-7584696E2677 at comcast dot net> <20140915004309 dot GA29543 at gate dot crashing dot org> <95EF5F55-098D-49F3-B6E6-79C1316D5148 at comcast dot net> <C2DD5222-FD32-407B-95DD-74E8D434A42C at codesourcery dot com> <A4344E8F-58D4-48A1-A9BC-B4C38378A1D9 at gmail dot com> <541708CF dot 2000708 at redhat dot com>
> What I think we need is folks with an understanding of those systems to chime in with the information Kai needs to fix the problem. I don't recall seeing that, so if I missed it, feel free to point me to it.
>
> I'd rather not start going backwards and reverting because we simply haven't done the digging to really understand the issues on other other ports.
Iain has argued rather convincingly (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg01201.html) that 1. the intent of the code introduced by the patch is unclear and not well document, 2. Kai has not clarified it following Iainâs request, 3. darwin maintainers have no idea how to hunt that bug, because of #1 & 2.
Given that it breaks severely a secondary platform, can we please revert it, while Iain and Kai (and others) can work on getting it better, on list or in bugzilla?
FX
PS: And yes, I know it sucks to revert a patch, and Iâve had one of mine reversed once or twice. But here Kai is not following up on this, or helping out understand what the issue is. It is not even clear that the problem is in darwin-specific code, and not in the patch itself (and only darwin exercices that code path, as Iain said)!