Update #2270.
---
cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/cpu_asm.S | 102 ++-
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/cpu_asm.S b/cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/cpu_asm.S
index 92674de..ddb2a13 100644
--- a/cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/cpu_asm.S
Straightforward leaf-optimization, except is there a reason to use jmp
%o7 + 8 instead of ret?
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> Update #2270.
> ---
> cpukit/score/cpu/sparc/cpu_asm.S | 102
> ++-
> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 54
- Gedare Bloom schrieb:
> Straightforward leaf-optimization, except is there a reason to use jmp
> %o7 + 8 instead of ret?
Hm, the GCC generates this instruction, is this the same as "ret"?
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> - Gedare Bloom schrieb:
>> Straightforward leaf-optimization, except is there a reason to use jmp
>> %o7 + 8 instead of ret?
>
> Hm, the GCC generates this instruction, is this the same as "ret"?
>
Yes I think so. Probably the manua
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>>
>> - Gedare Bloom schrieb:
>>> Straightforward leaf-optimization, except is there a reason to use jmp
>>> %o7 + 8 instead of ret?
>>
>> Hm, the GCC generates this instruction
I checked it in with the jmp instruction since it is also used in other SPARC
assembler files. It seems that in general the synthetic instructions are
avoided.
- Am 29. Mai 2015 um 18:38 schrieb Gedare Bloom ged...@gwu.edu:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> On Fri
