On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/10/2014 06:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
>>> A colleague has suggested a perhaps nicer syntax:
>>>
>>> __builtin_call_chain(pointer, call) where call must be a call expr
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/10/2014 06:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
>> A colleague has suggested a perhaps nicer syntax:
>>
>> __builtin_call_chain(pointer, call) where call must be a call expression
>
> I like this.
>
> Unlike the other suggestions, it d
On 10/10/2014 06:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> A colleague has suggested a perhaps nicer syntax:
>
> __builtin_call_chain(pointer, call) where call must be a call expression
I like this.
Unlike the other suggestions, it doesn't mess with the parsing of the "regular"
part of the function ca
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:33 PM, 'Ian Lance Taylor' via gofrontend-dev
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> >
>> > This is awful syntax, and therefore contains no documentation.
>> > But we'll ne
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> This is awful syntax, and therefore contains no documentation.
> But we'll need to be able to set the static chain on a few calls
> within the Go runtime, so we need to expose this by some means.
>
> It currently looks like
>
>
This is awful syntax, and therefore contains no documentation.
But we'll need to be able to set the static chain on a few calls
within the Go runtime, so we need to expose this by some means.
It currently looks like
function(args...) __builtin_call_chain(pointer)
because that was easy to
