On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:31:58PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> This patch adds to new backend hooks
> ASM_OUTPUT_START_FUNCTION_HEADER and
> ASM_OUTPUT_END_FUNCTION_FOOTER that may be defined to emit
> assembly code at the very start or end of a function.
We no longer need this patch.
Ciao
Domi
On 10/01/2015 08:30 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
However, you probably should add a sentence or two to
the documentation to specify ordering wrt other parts of the header
of a function.
Any suggestions where that information should be placed in the
documentation?
Just in the hook definition.
Be
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 01:54:17PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/28/2015 11:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >I mean, it's more or less random whether switching to and from the
> >function's section ends up inside the new .machine and
> >.machinemode directives (if the section needs to be switche
On 09/28/2015 11:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:33:56PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/24/2015 03:48 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Hm, I wonder whether wrapping all these section switches in
assemble_start/end_function in ".machine" pseudoops (that's what
we need the hooks f
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:33:56PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/24/2015 03:48 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >Hm, I wonder whether wrapping all these section switches in
> >assemble_start/end_function in ".machine" pseudoops (that's what
> >we need the hooks for; similar to .arch for ix86) has an
On 09/24/2015 03:48 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Hm, I wonder whether wrapping all these section switches in
assemble_start/end_function in ".machine" pseudoops (that's what
we need the hooks for; similar to .arch for ix86) has any real
effect.
I don't think I follow what you're trying to say here?
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:41:24PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/23/2015 04:48 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:56:15PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > Is
> >there some good reason these aren't hooks?
> >
> >No, that was just inobservance. New version attached. Would it be
> >
On 09/23/2015 04:48 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:56:15PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > Is
there some good reason these aren't hooks?
No, that was just inobservance. New version attached. Would it be
preferrable to initialize the hooks with a NULL pointer and test
the pointer b
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:56:15PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > Is
there some good reason these aren't hooks?
No, that was just inobservance. New version attached. Would it be
preferrable to initialize the hooks with a NULL pointer and test
the pointer before calling them? (That way the changes to
On 09/21/2015 05:31 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
This patch adds to new backend hooks
ASM_OUTPUT_START_FUNCTION_HEADER and
ASM_OUTPUT_END_FUNCTION_FOOTER that may be defined to emit
assembly code at the very start or end of a function. This
functionality is needed by the patch that ports the "target"
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:31:58PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> This patch adds to new backend hooks
> ASM_OUTPUT_START_FUNCTION_HEADER and
> ASM_OUTPUT_END_FUNCTION_FOOTER that may be defined to emit
> assembly code at the very start or end of a function. This
> functionality is needed by the pat
11 matches
Mail list logo
