PATCH for sibcalls on i386

[John David Anglin]

> If you don't agree, why not (as in "how comes that a sibcall
> pattern matter in your case")?

I've been looking and I don't have a full explanation yet.  I see in
expand call that try_tail_call is 0 and try_tail_recursion is 1.  It
looks like try_tail_call == 1 is necessary for sibcall generation
(see line 2623 in calls.c).  try_tail_call is 0 because
FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL always is 0 for TARGET_64BIT.  What I don't
understand is why we get a sibcall on hppa-linux which defines
FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL to be 0.

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)