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: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>, 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: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:43:38 +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> <C7CEDD5C-EE8B-4B7F-A6CC-7983A1824BBB at gmail dot com> <CAEwic4bN5p+p+WTrwx00b9XJbXsre0CyyqK-VYGYexAtjgaBdQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <541BC751 dot 40007 at redhat dot com>
> I found this a bit difficult to parse, so I'm going to try and summarize, please tell me if I've got it right or wrong.
>
> The code in question is not explicitly marked as being Darwin specific; however, to date we've only managed to exercise it on Darwin. Therefore, any fix is likely to be fairly specific to Darwin's unique characteristics.
>
> Furthermore, Kai believes that any new test would be redundant with the existing tests that are currently failing on Darwin.
>
> Is that a correct summary?
That seems correct, yes. Something in Darwin’s handling of visibility triggers it.
One more point, unanswered in what I’ve seen, is this from Iain:
> b) I'd like a clear explanation of what it's supposed to do so that we can examine why it doesn't do that..
> c) ..and, until we fix it it, it should be disabled or left out.
FX