On 15/02/16 11:21, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
On 02/14/2016 05:01 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
libgcc/ChangeLog:
* config.host: Use t-stack and t-stack-s390 for s390*-*-linux.
* config/s390/morestack.S: New file.
* config/s390/t-stack-s390: New file.
* generic-more
On 02/14/2016 05:01 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
> libgcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config.host: Use t-stack and t-stack-s390 for s390*-*-linux.
> * config/s390/morestack.S: New file.
> * config/s390/t-stack-s390: New file.
> * generic-morestack.c (__splitstack_find): Add s390-spe
On 04/02/16 13:44, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
On 03/02/16 18:27, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
libgcc/ChangeLog:
* config.host: Use t-stack and t-stack-s390 for s390*-*-linux.
* config/s390/morestack.S: New file.
* config/s390/t-stack-s390: New file.
* gene
Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
> I'll stay with checking for larl - while I can imagine someone adding a
> new conditional branch instruction, I don't see a need for another
> larl-like instruction. Besides, this way the failure mode for an
> unknown instruction would be producing an error, inste
On 04/02/16 17:27, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
Fair enough. Here's what I'm going to implement in gold:
- any PLT relocation: call
- PC32DBL on a larl: non-call
- PC32DBL otherwise: call
- any other relocation: non-call
Does that sound right?
Hmm, I'm wondering about
Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
> Fair enough. Here's what I'm going to implement in gold:
>
> - any PLT relocation: call
> - PC32DBL on a larl: non-call
> - PC32DBL otherwise: call
> - any other relocation: non-call
>
> Does that sound right?
Hmm, I'm wondering about the PC32DBL choices. There a
On 04/02/16 16:06, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
Ugh. I take that back. For -fPIC, the load-address sequence is:
larl%r1,f@GOTENT
lg %r2,0(%r1)
br %r14
This is correct.
And (sibling) call sequence is:
larl%r1,f
Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
> Ugh. I take that back. For -fPIC, the load-address sequence is:
>
> larl%r1,f@GOTENT
> lg %r2,0(%r1)
> br %r14
This is correct.
> And (sibling) call sequence is:
>
> larl%r1,f@GOTENT
> lg %r1,0(%
On 03/02/16 18:27, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
libgcc/ChangeLog:
* config.host: Use t-stack and t-stack-s390 for s390*-*-linux.
* config/s390/morestack.S: New file.
* config/s390/t-stack-s390: New file.
* generic-morestack.c (__splitstack_f
The second issue I'm still not sure about is the magic nop marker
for frameless functions. In an earlier mail you wrote:
Both currently supported
architectures always emit split-stack code on every function.
At least for rs6000 this doesn't appear to be true; in
rs6000_expand_split_stack_p
Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
> libgcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config.host: Use t-stack and t-stack-s390 for s390*-*-linux.
> * config/s390/morestack.S: New file.
> * config/s390/t-stack-s390: New file.
> * generic-morestack.c (__splitstack_find): Add s390-specific code.
>
> gcc/C
Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
> Comment fixed, split_stack_marker gone, reorg gone. Generated code seems
> sane,
> but testsuite still running.
>
> I will need to modify the gold patch to handle the "leaf function taking
> non-split
> stack function address" issue - this will likely require mess
On 02/02/16 19:33, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
Here we go. I've also removed the "see below", since I don't really
see anything below...
The "see below" refers to this code (which I agree isn't really obvious):
if (TARGET_TPF_PROFILING)
{
/* Generate a B
Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
> Here we go. I've also removed the "see below", since I don't really
> see anything below...
The "see below" refers to this code (which I agree isn't really obvious):
if (TARGET_TPF_PROFILING)
{
/* Generate a BAS instruction to serve as a function
On 02/02/2016 03:52 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
> libgcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config.host: Use t-stack and t-stack-s390 for s390*-*-linux.
> * config/s390/morestack.S: New file.
> * config/s390/t-stack-s390: New file.
> * generic-morestack.c (__splitstack_find): Add s390-spe
On 01/29/2016 04:43 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
> The testsuite with -fsplit-stack already hits all of them, and checking
> them manually is rather tricky (I don't know if it could be done in
> target-independent way at all), but I think it'd be reasonable to make
> assembly testcases calling
On 29/01/16 14:33, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
Hi Marcin,
sorry for the late feedback.
A few comments regarding the split stack implementation:
The GNU coding style requires to replace every 8 leading blanks on a
line with a tab. There are many lines in your patch violating this.
In case you are a
Hi Marcin,
sorry for the late feedback.
A few comments regarding the split stack implementation:
The GNU coding style requires to replace every 8 leading blanks on a
line with a tab. There are many lines in your patch violating this.
In case you are an emacs user `whitespace-cleanup' will fix t
18 matches
Mail list logo
