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: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>, FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Iain Sandoe <iain at codesourcery dot com>, Kai Tietz <ktietz at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:43:13 +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> <C9E55C41-5500-483F-9623-10D0E6C7761F at gmail dot com> <CAEwic4Y+sjNK-JURYZiK5W8Kq_MhZ6GV64mzQmOAhVdpGiXy0g at mail dot gmail dot com> <52368B3D-91AD-44CC-B451-9BEC03189625 at gmail dot com> <CAEwic4a50Z4Jv1j-HVqQBVcKVR_z9VdD1BwYUgax2z9_H_tHBQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <99F31408-76FF-4A10-8223-1BDE6EA981BB at gmail dot com> <F83C249A-DC9A-495B-9E0E-6194F233701C at gmail dot com> <CAEwic4a09AxJ0AyYt=5tjP6cnPrUf7DW4Jt8HmgCzinR1STbMQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <9BB60B2B-D688-4E30-A0B4-27020666EC2A at comcast dot net>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I missed that op points still on the memory here. So corrected patch
>> is inlined below.
>
> So, Iâm wondering if the x86 maintainers want me to review and approve a patch, or if they want to. I was assuming they wanted to.
As far as I'm concerned, this is Darwin specific patch, so it needs
an approval from Darwin maintainer. The patch just happens to live in
i386 directory ;)
Thanks,
Uros.