This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Work in progress: "Super Sib Calls"; opinions sought
- From: Jeff Law <law at porcupine dot slc dot redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Bauer <baueran at in dot tum dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pizka at in dot tum dot de, jason dot ozolins at anu dot edu dot au
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:12:04 -0600
- Subject: Re: Work in progress: "Super Sib Calls"; opinions sought
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20020910063439.GA18565@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
>On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:46:07PM +1000, Andreas Bauer wrote:
>> ... but I do not see how
>> I could possibly address indirect calls without making ARM maintainers
>> (and others) unhappy.
>
>The way you can make this work with the existing mechanism is to push
>the "no indirect" check into every target's FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL hook.
>This, by itself, preserves the status quo.
>
>Then, on a case-by-case basis, modify each target's sibcall patterns
>(and if it doesn't have one, add it) such that there is a register
>class available that is call-clobbered.
Right. This (like so many other things) fell to the wayside due to
time constraints, it's not a particularly hard problem to solve.
jeff