https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ede37c0f274f0de19afd662588891e32b60f705
commit r11-9836-g5ede37c0f274f0de19afd662588891e32b60f705
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d74c4c6a1b4956b5cd9b2a770bb7261836fa1289
commit r12-8095-gd74c4c6a1b4956b5cd9b2a770bb7261836fa1289
Author: Peter Bergner
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bergner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
Sorry for the delay, but getting back to this now...
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #6)
> What I should have said is that -mlongcall code is correct but is
> missing a sibcall optimisation. -fno-plt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
So, similar code to what we have in rs6000_call_aix to handle
if ((INTVAL (cookie) & CALL_LONG) != 0
&& GET_CODE (func_desc) == SYMBOL_REF)
should be added to rs6000_sibcall_aix, I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
I'm sorry, I forgot exactly what was happening when I talked about this on the
call. What I should have said is that -mlongcall code is correct but is
missing a sibcall optimisation. -fno-plt code (after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4)
> Do check that the result is not a direct call. I think I was wrong to say
> the assert could be removed (or modified as you have done).
I'm assuming you mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Do check that the result is not a direct call. I think I was wrong to say the
assert could be removed (or modified as you have done).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104894
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux-gnu
See
14 matches
Mail list logo
