https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
A secondary comment - the wiring up of the built-ins that allocate/deallocate
trampoline entries makes the underlying mechanism opaque to the middle end
consumer.
So, although the current example implementatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-01 21:22 ---
This is why the PowerOpen ABI is good, it does not require stack based
trampolines.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #3 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-09-26 04:06 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> If you tried the page-of-functions idea, what would you do if you'd used all
> the functions on the page and needed another one?
>
You'd do the same as if you'd used up all the stack space.
Th
--- Comment #2 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-26 00:44 ---
If you tried the page-of-functions idea, what would you do if you'd used all
the functions on the page and needed another one?
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-25 23:53 ---
Really there is no way to fix this without compiler help.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
