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] Add -mno-r11 option to suppress load of ppc64 static chain in indirect calls

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:03:38 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add -mno-r11 option to suppress load of ppc64 static chain in indirect calls
References: <20110706222922.GA23641@hungry-tiger.westford.ibm.com> <CAFiYyc0kMDvmy02+-cWUA1h5c3c0w3Z1VW_sX3Q_-dPHR4J_kw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Hum.  Can't the compiler figure this our itself per-call-site?  At least
> the name of the command-line switch -m[no-]r11 is meaningless to me.
> Points-to information should be able to tell you if the function pointer
> points to a nested function.

Yeah.  E.g. for C++ virtual method calls I believe all function pointers in
vtables should always ignore the static chain pointer, etc., because you
can't have a nested method.

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Add -mno-r11 option to suppress load of ppc64 static chain in indirect calls
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- [PATCH] Add -mno-r11 option to suppress load of ppc64 static chain in indirect calls
  - From: Michael Meissner
- Re: [PATCH] Add -mno-r11 option to suppress load of ppc64 static chain in indirect calls
  - From: Richard Guenther

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