Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:35:59PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 03/19/14 15:03, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > >The three pieces that are somewhat controversial for non-powerpc targets > > >are 9/26, 10/26, 15/26. > > > > > > * Uli and Alan, can you speak to any concerns for 9/26? > > I've got no concerns about 9/26. Uli, Alan and myself worked > > through this pretty thoroughly. I've had those in the back of my > > mind as something we're going to want to make sure to pull in. > > Thanks Jeff. I don't have any concern over 9/26, it's quite > conservative like most of the ELFv2 implementation. When we were > looking at parameter passing changes we didn't go as far as we could. > For example, we still pass fp to varargs functions in both fp regs and > on the stack, when only the stack will be used by a callee correctly > implementing either ELFv2 or ELFv1 ABIs. Another thing that we didn't > change is that sibcalls can be allowed in more cases than the current > code allows.
I concur with Jeff and Alan that 9/26 should be safe. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
