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: RFC: [4.7] Adding CUMULATIVE_ARGS to targetm.calls.function_ok_for_sibcall?

From: Georg-Johann Lay <avr at gjlay dot de>
To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:08:34 +0100
Subject: Re: RFC: [4.7] Adding CUMULATIVE_ARGS to targetm.calls.function_ok_for_sibcall?
References: <4D6F9CFB.60207@gjlay.de> <20110303113122.h3u6jkp0zcwsk44c-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net>

Joern Rennecke wrote:

Quoting Georg-Johann Lay <avr@gjlay.de>:

Is it ok to extend targetm.function_ok_for_sibcall so that it passes
also a pointer to the callee's CUMULATIVE_ARGS structure?

CUMULATIVE_ARGS is a target-dependent type, and thus every use of it
in the interface of target hooks should be considered a bug.
See PR46500.

Thanks for pointing me to that thread.

So the question is if such an extension would be okay in principle after cumulative_args_t, or whatever it will eventually be, has found it's way into mainline?

Johann

References:
- RFC: [4.7] Adding CUMULATIVE_ARGS to targetm.calls.function_ok_for_sibcall?
  - From: Georg-Johann Lay
- Re: RFC: [4.7] Adding CUMULATIVE_ARGS to targetm.calls.function_ok_for_sibcall?
  - From: Joern Rennecke

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