List of important PRs for 3.3.1, week -3.5

[Dale Johannesen]

On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 05:50  PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Could you add 3187 as it is a regression from 2.95.3 and should have 
> been marked as a regression long time ago?
> I think someone from apple sent in a patch to fix this but I could be 
> wrong.

It's only sort of a regresion; 2.95.3 did not follow the standard in 
this area, and the extra functions
are a side effect of conformance.  At least another entry point is 
necessary.

Apple has code that changes one of the duplicate functions to be a call 
to the other one, and
lets sibcall change this into a single branch insn.  I don't recall 
whether this was submitted,
and don't know whether such an approach would be welcomed.  Certainly 
multiple entry
points seem cleaner to me, but MacOS can't currently handle them.