Re: A correction: Different invariants about the contents of static links]

2006-07-16 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Rodney M. Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, Thanks for the information. Just in case, does anybody already have it in their head roughly where in gcc code this decision is made? tree-nested.c Ian

Re: A correction: Different invariants about the contents of static links]

2006-07-15 Thread Rodney M. Bates
OK, Thanks for the information. Just in case, does anybody already have it in their head roughly where in gcc code this decision is made? Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Rodney M. Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When executing in foo, the frame pointer will point to a fixed spot in the activation

Re: A correction: Different invariants about the contents of static links]

2006-07-13 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Rodney M. Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When executing in foo, the frame pointer will point to a fixed spot in the activation record of foo. On i386, the FP is %ebx and it points to the dynamic link field. From there, loc is at displacement -4. Code in the body of foo will reference x at

A correction: Different invariants about the contents of static links]

2006-07-12 Thread Rodney M. Bates
This is repost of my slightly earlier post, with a critical and confusing misstatement corrected. Well, I agree with what you said about your example, but it's not what I am meaning. See below. Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Rodney M. Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't understand this. A