On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:23:32PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On S390 we don't have a real TCG implementation but use a stub instead. This
stub obviously doesn't call any of the TCG helper functions that are usually
used by the other TCG targets.
If such a helper function is static though,
On 05/21/2010 09:46 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
+tcg_out_reloc(NULL, NULL, 0, 0, 0);
}
What about declaring tcg_out_reloc static inline?
I think we're not far away from a mergable s390 port.
I think the smallest local change is best in the interim.
r~
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:50:34PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 11.05.2010 um 19:26 schrieb Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net:
On 05/11/2010 09:47 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Won't you get another warning about unreachable code
because tcg_abort never returns?
We don't enable that warning.
On 12.05.2010, at 19:28, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:50:34PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 11.05.2010 um 19:26 schrieb Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net:
On 05/11/2010 09:47 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Won't you get another warning about unreachable code
because
Am 11.05.2010 18:23, schrieb Alexander Graf:
On S390 we don't have a real TCG implementation but use a stub
instead. This
stub obviously doesn't call any of the TCG helper functions that are
usually
used by the other TCG targets.
If such a helper function is static though, we end up getting a
On 05/11/2010 09:47 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Won't you get another warning about unreachable code
because tcg_abort never returns?
We don't enable that warning.
What about condition compilation for tcg_out_reloc
(don't compile it for hosts which don't need it)?
All hosts should need it. S390
Am 11.05.2010 um 19:26 schrieb Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net:
On 05/11/2010 09:47 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Won't you get another warning about unreachable code
because tcg_abort never returns?
We don't enable that warning.
What about condition compilation for tcg_out_reloc
(don't
