Hi Segher , We would like to know comments on the below proposed change ?
Thank you ~Umesh On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:23 PM umesh.kalappa0 at gmail dot com <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513 > > --- Comment #17 from Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail dot com> --- > the following change > > #undef TARGET_ASM_CAN_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK > #define TARGET_ASM_CAN_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK rs6000_can_output_mi_thunk > > /* Return true if rs6000_output_mi_thunk would be able to output the > assembler code for the thunk function specified by the arguments > it is passed, and false otherwise. */ > > static bool > rs6000_can_output_mi_thunk (const_tree, HOST_WIDE_INT, HOST_WIDE_INT, > const_tree) > { > if (rs6000_default_long_calls) > return false; > > /* The loader neither creates the glue code sequence that loads r12 nor uses > the local entry point for the sibcall's target in the ELFv2 ABI. */ > return DEFAULT_ABI != ABI_ELFv2; > } > > when we have longcall enabled ,we fall through regular asm thunk generation > like above . > > is that ok to commit and we regressed for powerpc and no-regress found .
