On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:14 PM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, that's up to the target maintainers to decide, maybe >> -mno-nested-functions instead? > > Is -mno-nested-functions or -mno-nested-function-pointers too > C-centric or GCC-centric? I don't know what wording would be more > informative, but the functionality is available in Pascal, PL/I, Ada, > GCC extensions and other languages. We're open to suggestions. > >> The compiler certainly can't figure out in _all_ cases - but it should be >> able to handle >> most of the cases (with LTO even more cases) ok, no? > > -mno-r11 is an assertion to the compiler that no function calls > through pointers will require the static chain. However, I agree that > the compiler conservatively should be able to figure out some cases > itself, which would be a good enhancement.
Does XLC have a similar switch whose name we can use? Richard. > Thanks, David >