On Dec 26, 2007, at 14:24, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Geert Bosch wrote:
Nested functions aren't used that much in C indeed... :)
Paul, would you please review this patch?
This patch isn't good. While it addressed the alignment
issue, it didn't correctly adjust all necessary offset
computations
Geert Bosch wrote:
> Nested functions aren't used that much in C indeed... :)
Paul, would you please review this patch?
> --- arm.c.orig 2007-11-20 16:27:04.0 -0500
> +++ arm.c 2007-11-21 18:15:18.0 -0500
> @@ -10448,6 +10448,14 @@ arm_get_frame_offsets (void)
>/* Save
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 06:32:22PM -0500, Geert Bosch wrote:
> Richard, for the help). However, we're not quite sure if this is
> right. If you or other ARM-knowledgeable people have any feedback,
> that would be most welcome. I'll then make an updated patch against
> head and submit for review a
On Nov 21, 2007, at 16:34, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>Did you mean to send this to the list? If so, feel free to reply
>there.
Indeed, I did. I now Cc-ed the list as well.
>>Here's the first few lines of a-textio.adb disassembly:
>>Dump of assembler code for function ada__text_io__put_line:
>>0x800
> Do you have any test cases? I'm pretty sure this works, at least in
> the usual cases.
They're going to be hard to construct since they are sensitive to such
things as the number of registers saved.
> A wild guess says that you're doing this in Ada. It may be something
> specific to the neste
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 03:56:02PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> When that option is enabled, STACK_BOUNDARY is set to 64.
>
> But when you look at arm_expand_prologue, it appears that very little
> effort is made to respect that alignment. Three specific cases I see
> are the IS_NESTED case of
When that option is enabled, STACK_BOUNDARY is set to 64.
But when you look at arm_expand_prologue, it appears that very little
effort is made to respect that alignment. Three specific cases I see
are the IS_NESTED case of pushing ip_rtx and, the lack of checking the
size of args_to_push, and no
