On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:14:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > I'm lost in the mysteries of expansion of the indirect call, also
> > > ix86_value_regno gets called all over the place, so the
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:14:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I'm lost in the mysteries of expansion of the indirect call, also
> > ix86_value_regno gets called all over the place, so the "interesting"
> > call-site is hard to find.
>
> We'
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:14:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I'm lost in the mysteries of expansion of the indirect call, also
> ix86_value_regno gets called all over the place, so the "interesting"
> call-site is hard to find.
We'll have to change the FUNCTION_VALUE interface to handle thi
Hi!
I'm facing a problem, that with code like
double sin(double);
double __attribute__((sseregparm)) (*mysin)(double) = sin;
double bar(double x)
{
return mysin(x);
}
we fail to recognize that mysin returns in %mm0 because ix86_value_regno
is only ever called with NULL func argument. We corre
[1st try appearantly did not get through - sorry if you get this twice]
Hi!
I'm facing a problem, that with code like
double sin(double);
double __attribute__((sseregparm)) (*mysin)(double) = sin;
double bar(double x)
{
return mysin(x);
}
we fail to recognize that mysin returns in %mm0 becaus
