This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH]: Fix PR c/12372

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
Cc: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>, jason at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:26:54 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Fix PR c/12372
References: <200310241435.h9OEZH4n019913@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <200310291518.58822.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <20031029175022.GA22572@redhat.com> <200310301418.51131.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:18:51PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Would it be feasible to refine a bit the code in init_propagate_block_info to 
> not add MEMs that "are likely" to be arguments for the sibcalls? Or is this 
> approach not the right one, and we should resort to marking the arguments in 
> calls.c like Dave proposed?

I think it would be best to mark the arguments.


r~

References:
- Re: [PATCH]: Fix PR c/12372
  - From: John David Anglin
- Re: [PATCH]: Fix PR c/12372
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH]: Fix PR c/12372
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [PATCH]: Fix PR c/12372
  - From: Eric Botcazou

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