This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Expansion of __builtin_frame_address


On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:20:21PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:30, Mark Shinwell wrote:
> 
> > However when dealing with __builtin_frame_address, we must return the
> > correct value from this function no matter what the value of count.  This
> > patch therefore forces use of a hard FP in such situations.
> 
> Eh?  The manual explicitly says that __builtin_frame_address is only
> required to work if count=0.  You simply cannot up walk arbitrary
> numbers of frames on some CPUs since code isn't compiled to support it.

Right - it's the result of __builtin_frame_address (0) we're looking at
here.

Mark's latest change seems logical to me: the user has asked for the
frame address, so hadn't we better arrange that there's a frame?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery


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