This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PING patch]: Preparations for call abi switching via attribute.
- From: "Uros Bizjak" <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- To: "Kai Tietz" <Kai dot Tietz at onevision dot com>
- Cc: bernd dot schmidt at analog dot com, dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, hp at axis dot com, jh at suse dot cz, jkj at sco dot com, kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, me dot gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, nathan at codesourcery dot com, nickc at redhat dot com, thorpej at netbsd dot org
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:45:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PING patch]: Preparations for call abi switching via attribute.
- References: <5787cf470805070618o4f010ea4w746f7573f6d82dba@mail.gmail.com> <OF8FC39441.7AD69122-ONC1257442.00499859-C1257442.0049C291@onevision.de>
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kai Tietz <Kai.Tietz@onevision.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Kai Tietz <Kai.Tietz@onevision.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > (ix86_sysv4_return_in_memory): New.
> > > (ix86_ptx4i_return_in_memory): New.
> > > (ix86_i386elf_return_in_memory): New.
> >
> > Do we really need three equivalent functions with different name? I
> > think that ix86_i386elf_return_in_memory should handle them all.
>
> I was just not sure, which name I should use here. But
> ix86_i386elf_return_in_memory is fine. I update the patch for this.
The ix86 part of the patch is OK with this change.
Thanks,
Uros.