On 26/04/14 14:25, Eric Botcazou wrote:
2014-03-21 James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
* calls.c (initialize_argument_information): Always treat
PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED as 1, simplify code accordingly.
(expand_call): Likewise.
(emit_library_call_calue_1): Likewise.
*
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 09:15:57PM +0100, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/24/14 05:44, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Which is much neater.
It seems to me that this would probably be of benefit on all targets.
This would be an argument for setting PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED to 1 by default
for all targets.
2014-03-21 James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
* calls.c (initialize_argument_information): Always treat
PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED as 1, simplify code accordingly.
(expand_call): Likewise.
(emit_library_call_calue_1): Likewise.
* expr.c (PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED): Do
On 03/24/14 05:44, James Greenhalgh wrote:
Which is much neater.
It seems to me that this would probably be of benefit on all targets.
This would be an argument for setting PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED to 1 by default
for all targets. However, this would have a perceivable impact on argument
evaluation
Hi,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Richard Henderson wrote:
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions#pascal
Since we don't actually support this anymore, we can certainly tidy this
up.
Yeah, I thought about that, but I couldn't see how that could have used
PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
Consider this testcase:
extern void foo (int a, int b, int c, int d);
void
bar (int b, int c, int d)
{
foo (3, b, c, d);
}
For many ABI's we will have on entry to the function
Hi,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
Maybe somebody remembers why we have both paths. I'd rather make
gimplification independent of this as well, choosing either variant.
I can't say why we have the !PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED path (so I guess that's
the way that initially was there,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:54:49AM +, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:44 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
Consider this testcase:
extern void foo (int a, int b, int c, int d);
void
bar (int b, int c, int d)
{
foo
On 03/24/2014 06:23 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
I can't say why we have the !PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED path (so I guess that's
the way that initially was there, before the distinction was made), but
the PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED==1 path is important when you have push
instructions and arguments grow in the
