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: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c

From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:46:14 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
References: <20050829142016.GA2687@bubble.grove.modra.org><Pine.LNX.4.61L.0508291602000.12296@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl><5100bee0ddfccf7f926a25b68804c8aa@physics.uc.edu>

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:

> It does not have a frame because we sibling call optimize check_fa_work
> which enables us not to have a frame pointer (or a stack pointer change)
> in check_fa_mid.  This is not hiding the symptom, this is fixing the
> testcase for assuming things wrong.

 I can't check what __builtin_frame_address(0) returns in this case for 
this target -- is it the frame address of the caller?  If so, then the 
change is legitimate indeed.  Thanks for the fix.

  Maciej

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Alan Modra

References:
- gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Maciej W. Rozycki
- Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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