d any more.
That's fine.
So this movement to rtl dose make sense.
Regards
Thomas Klein
Index: gcc/opts.c
===
--- gcc/opts.c(revision 176974)
+++ gcc/opts.c(working copy)
@@ -1644,6 +1644,12 @@ common_handle_opti
gcc/ChangeLog
2011-09-04 Thomas Klein
* opts.c (common_handle_option): introduce new parameters "direct" and
"indirect"
* flag-types.h (enum stack_check_type): Likewise
* explow.c (allocate_dynamic_stack_space):
- suppress stack probing if parameter &qu
f the current register is r3, then the next register is r0.
I think the ARG_REGISTER macro will not reduce confusion.
n = ( ARG_REGISTER(reg+1) + 1) % NUM_ARG_REGS;
identical to
n = (reg + 1) % NUM_ARG_REGS;
regards
Thomas Klein
gcc/ChangeLog
2011-09-05 Thomas Klein
* opts.c (co
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01226.html
gcc/ChangeLog
2011-09-20 Thomas Klein
* opts.c (common_handle_option): introduce new parameters "direct" and
"indirect"
* flag-types.h (enum stack_check_type): Likewise
* explow.c (allocate
-patches/2011-07/msg00149.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01872.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01226.html
gcc/ChangeLog
2011-09-21 Thomas Klein
* opts.c (common_handle_option): introduce new parameters "direct" and
"indirect"
n here, too.
Maybe you think that this is a nasty hack, so insert a better one instead.
All tests succeeds.
I'm still thinking that my idea isn't that bad.
How ever any feedback from the ARM maintainers would be god.
Even if is something like: "We hate this bull shit at all.&qu
Hello
Even if I'm going to bore everyone.
Is it possible to get an answer from the ARM maintainers?
This is a serious question, and I hope there will be a serious answer.
Regards
Thomas Klein
reference:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01774.html
M architecture.
The generated code look like this
e.g. if using "-fstack-check=indirect -fstack-limit-symbol=stack_limit_var"
-> push {r0}
-> ldr r0, .LSPCHK0
-> ldr r0, [r0]
-> cmp sp, r0
-> bhs .LSPCHK1
-> push {lr}
-> bl __thumb_stack_failure
-&
ue to rtl, this patch needs to be modified
too.
Regards
Thomas Klein
gcc/ChangeLog
2011-07-03 Thomas Klein <mailto:th.r.kl...@web.de>
* opts.c (common_handle_option): introduce additional stack checking
parameters "direct" and "indirect"
* flag-types.h (e
Richard Henderson wrote:
On 07/03/2011 08:06 AM, Thomas Klein wrote:
> +/*
> + * Write prolouge part of stack check into asm file.
> + * For Thumb this may look like this:
> + * push {rsym,ramn}
> + * ldr rsym, .LSPCHK0
> + * ldr rsym, [rsym]
> + * l
built.
regards
Thomas
PS.
If it helps. I've already done copyright assignment for future changes.
But, not explicit for the configure scripts.
Also I don't have write permission, (nor I'm requesting for this).
2011-03-08 Thomas Klein
PR 47836
* configure.ac: a
_var"
->push {r0}
->ldr r0, =stack_limit_var
->ldr r0, [r0]
-> cmp sp, r0
->bhs 1f
->push {lr}
->bl__thumb_stack_failure@ stack check
->.align
->.ltorg
->1:
->pop{r0}
Regards
Thomas Klein
gcc/ChangeLog
* Florian Weimer:
* Thomas Klein:
e.g. if using "-fstack-check=indirect
-fstack-limit-symbol=stack_limit_var"
Have you looked at -fsplit-stack? It emits quite similar code.
Yes I have seen this.
But the switches -fstack-check and -fsplit-stack are for different cases.
The &q
13 matches
Mail list logo
