> From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:29:01PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> The easiest way is to do this in the linker instead of the compiler.
>> See the xstormy16 port and how it handles R_XSTORMY16_FPTR16. This
>> has the distinct advantage that
Marek Michalkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:29:01PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > The easiest way is to do this in the linker instead of the compiler.
> > See the xstormy16 port and how it handles R_XSTORMY16_FPTR16. This
> > has the distinct advantage th
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:29:01PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The easiest way is to do this in the linker instead of the compiler.
> See the xstormy16 port and how it handles R_XSTORMY16_FPTR16. This
> has the distinct advantage that you do not commit to the creation of
> an indirect jump
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:12:40AM +0100, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:
> On the other hand, branches within the same function should avoid the
> extra jump and go to "1:" directly. If the same label is used in both
> ways (direct jump/branch, and address taken), two separate labels (at
> the same ad
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:58:29AM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> It is possible in GNU C at least:
>
> int foo(int dest)
> {
>__label__ l1, l2, l3;
>void *lb[] = { &&l1, &&l2, &&l3 };
>int x = 0;
>
>goto *lb[dest];
>
> l1:
>x += 1;
> l2:
>x += 1;
> l3:
>x += 1;
>
> From: Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Don't we know which labels are targets of indirect jumps?
> So the proposed restriction now becomes: functions *and targets of indirect
> jumps* must be aligned to an N word boundary. I'd guess that the latter are
> sufficiently rare that this is still an ac
> From: Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - Sorry, I'm confused; can you give me an example of legal C
>> expression specifying an indirect jump to an arbitrary location
>> within a function?
> It is possible in GNU C at least:
- thanks, obviously w
On Sunday 20 March 2005 01:58, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - Sorry, I'm confused; can you give me an example of legal C
> > expression specifying an indirect jump to an arbitrary location
> > within a function?
>
> It is possible in GNU C at least:
>
> int fo
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Sorry, I'm confused; can you give me an example of legal C
> expression specifying an indirect jump to an arbitrary location
> within a function?
It is possible in GNU C at least:
int foo(int dest)
{
__label__ l1, l2, l3;
void *lb[] = { &&l1, &
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:37:54PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - or possibly GCC may try to be clever by jumping to no-return attribute
> function calls?
Such "trying to be clever" would most likely be optional.
Again, why is indirect_jump _mandatory_ on all machines?
Please, don't try to be t
> From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Good question - I can't. On the other hand, the manual says:
>>
>> `indirect_jump'
>> An instruction to jump to an address which is operand zero. *This pattern
>> name is mandatory on all machines.*
>>
>
> From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Good question - I can't. On the other hand, the manual says:
>
> `indirect_jump'
> An instruction to jump to an address which is operand zero. *This pattern
> name is mandatory on all machines.*
>
> Why would it be mandatory if it was not truly
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:38:28PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - understood, however unlikely; observing it will likely take Atmel at
> least 2-3 years to stabilize production of the 256K devices, and larger
> device volume potential vs. competitive offerings couldn't likely justify
> their
> From: Marek Michalkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> - Fully agree, just can't keep from wondering if this may be most
>> efficiency accomplish by simply requiring the alignment of all
>> function entry points to be two instruction word aligned. Thereby
>
> This only doubles the available addres
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:51:05PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - Fully agree, just can't keep from wondering if this may be most
> efficiency accomplish by simply requiring the alignment of all
> function entry points to be two instruction word aligned. Thereby
This only doubles the available
> From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:
>> I'm looking into adding support for ATmega256x and larger devices to
>> the AVR port. This means that program memory addresses no longer fit
>> in 16 bits - and I'm looking how to avoid making pointers larger.
>
> - Fully ag
> Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:
> I'm looking into adding support for ATmega256x and larger devices to
> the AVR port. This means that program memory addresses no longer fit
> in 16 bits - and I'm looking how to avoid making pointers larger.
- Fully agree, just can't keep from wondering if this may
17 matches
Mail list logo
