On 21 March 2006 14:59, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 04:19:52PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>> However, I might still want to make it an option for cases where debugging
>> isn't going to be important; it seems to me that the generated code should
>> still be valid.
>
> At which
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 04:19:52PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> However, I might still want to make it an option for cases where debugging
> isn't going to be important; it seems to me that the generated code should
> still be valid.
At which point you should tail call to abort and be done with it.
S
On 20 March 2006 15:31, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 12:57:14PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Taking a look at leaf_function_p, I see that it specifically discounts
>> sibcalls; why not noreturncalls as well?
>
> Because generally losing unwind information from noreturn calls
>
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 12:57:14PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> Taking a look at leaf_function_p, I see that it specifically discounts
> sibcalls; why not noreturncalls as well?
Because generally losing unwind information from noreturn calls
is a lose when it comes to debugging.
r~
