On 2012-09-29 05:07, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: >> Now that we're always sparcv9, we can not bother using Bicc for >> 32-bit branches and BPcc for 64-bit branches and instead always >> use BPcc. > > But then the branch range is smaller (19 bits). The code buffer is > 32M, wouldn't we use BPcc for TB linking too and then the range could > be exceed?
We use CALL for TB linking, with its 30 bit range. BPcc is only needed within a TB, which should never come close to 2MB. r~
