[patch i386]: Sibcall tail-call improvement and partial fix PR/60104

Kai Tietz ktietz70@googlemail.com
Thu Sep 18 21:56:00 GMT 2014


2014-09-18 23:35 GMT+02:00 FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com>:
> Dear Kai,
>
>> it isn't true that I didn't replied to Iant.  I did this on IRC.
>
> Good. I simply did not see any recent comment from you on the list, or bugzilla.
>
>> As
>> this code-path isn't prominent mark being Darwin-code - and please
>> don't take me wrong, but it seems to be until now the only target
>> reporting this issues
>
> Sure, no problem. There are many code-paths in the compiler that are only taken on a subset of targets, so noone is implying that you should have tested it on all targets before committing.
>
>
>> - and therefore I strongly see the issue to be
>> solved for Darwin.   I don't see that this changes needs an additional
>> testcase demonstration on a already regression-tested target that it
>> doesn't break ...
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that. I was only saying that if this part of the patch is only exercised on darwin, and it fails there, we might want to change it.
>
>> Nevertheless I provided in the past already a patch which fixes the
>> issue well.
>
> Could you give a link to the patch? I'm not finding it. Has it been tested on darwin? If not, I can do it.

See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387 comment #9.  It
doesn't apply anymore due current version of predicate was altered.
Nevertheless I could easily update patch for current trunk version.

>
>> I don't agree to revert that patch.  Please provide a testcase, why my
>> suggested fix isn't suitable.
>
> If there is a patch submitted that fixes the issue, of course reversion is bad. I was unaware of that.
>
> FX

Kai



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list