On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:20:21PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:30, Mark Shinwell wrote: > > > However when dealing with __builtin_frame_address, we must return the > > correct value from this function no matter what the value of count. This > > patch therefore forces use of a hard FP in such situations. > > Eh? The manual explicitly says that __builtin_frame_address is only > required to work if count=0. You simply cannot up walk arbitrary > numbers of frames on some CPUs since code isn't compiled to support it.
Right - it's the result of __builtin_frame_address (0) we're looking at here. Mark's latest change seems logical to me: the user has asked for the frame address, so hadn't we better arrange that there's a frame? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery
