On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:23:41AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
You might have a reason why you want the entry stack address
instead of the
frame address, but you didn't really explain I think? Or I
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:50 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 01:00:32PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
There is another issue with x86, maybe other targets. You
can't get the real stack
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:23:41AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
You might have a reason why you want the entry stack address instead
of the
frame address, but you didn't really explain I think? Or I missed
it.
What would a C program do with this, that it cannot do with the frame
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:00 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:23:41AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
You might have a reason why you want the entry stack address
instead of the
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:25:49AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Here is a patch to add __builtin_argument_pointer. I only have
Sorry to be a pain but... all the other builtins use _address
instead of _pointer,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:08:01AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Maybe something like (heavily cut'n'pasted):
@deftypefn {Built-in Function} {void *} __builtin_argument_address (void)
This function is similar to @code{__builtin_frame_address} with an
argument of 0, but it returns the address
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:08:01AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Maybe something like (heavily cut'n'pasted):
@deftypefn {Built-in Function} {void *} __builtin_argument_address (void)
This function is similar
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:25:49AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Here is a patch to add __builtin_argument_pointer. I only have
Sorry to be a pain but... all the other builtins use _address
instead of _pointer, it's probably best to follow that.
-- Built-in Function: void *
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 03:18:46PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
@deftypefn {Built-in Function} {void *} __builtin_argument_pointer (void)
This function is similar to @code{__builtin_frame_address} with an
argument of 0, but it returns the address of the incoming arguments to
the current function
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:53:47PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
How about this
@deftypefn {Built-in Function} {void *} __builtin_argument_pointer (void)
This function is similar to @code{__builtin_frame_address}
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:53 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:08:01AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Maybe something like (heavily cut'n'pasted):
@deftypefn {Built-in
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:53:47PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
How about this
@deftypefn {Built-in Function} {void *} __builtin_argument_pointer (void)
This function is similar to @code{__builtin_frame_address} with an
argument of 0, but it returns the address of the incoming arguments to
the
On Aug 4, 2015, at 5:30 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Where does this feature belong?
I prefer the middle end.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 4, 2015, at 5:30 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Where does this feature belong?
I prefer the middle end.
Any comments on my middle-end patch?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:28:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Any comments on my middle-end patch?
So, if the answer is the same as frame_address (0), why not have the
fallback just expand to that? Then,
On Aug 4, 2015, at 8:44 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 4, 2015, at 5:30 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Where does this feature belong?
I prefer the middle end.
Any comments on my middle-end
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 4, 2015, at 8:44 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 4, 2015, at 5:30 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
Where does this feature
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:28:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Any comments on my middle-end patch?
So, if the answer is the same as frame_address (0), why not have the
fallback just expand to that? Then, one can use this builtin everywhere
that frame address is used today. People that
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:50 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:28:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
Any comments on my middle-end patch?
So, if the answer is the same as
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 11:50:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
The motivation of __builtin_stack_top is that frame_address requires a
frame pointer register, which isn't desirable for x86.
__builtin_stack_top
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 01:00:32PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
There is another issue with x86, maybe other targets. You
can't get the real stack top when stack is realigned and
-maccumulate-outgoing-args isn't
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 01:00:32PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
There is another issue with x86, maybe other targets. You
can't get the real stack top when stack is realigned and
-maccumulate-outgoing-args isn't used since ix86_expand_prologue
will create and return another stack frame for
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 11:50:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
The motivation of __builtin_stack_top is that frame_address requires a
frame pointer register, which isn't desirable for x86. __builtin_stack_top
doesn't require a frame pointer register.
If the target just returns
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:41 PM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 02:45:39PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
When __builtin_frame_address is used to retrieve the address of the
function stack frame, the frame pointer is always kept, which wastes one
register and 2
24 matches
Mail list logo
