This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: A very "strange" bug in gcc 2.96
- To: rth at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: A very "strange" bug in gcc 2.96
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, drepper at cygnus dot com, egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com, hjl at lucon dot org, ian at zembu dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:57:09 -0700
> From: Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com>
> To: Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com>
> Cc: drepper@cygnus.com, ian@zembu.com, binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com,
> egcs@egcs.cygnus.com, hjl@lucon.org, mark@codesourcery.com
> References: <200005221742.KAA19115@kankakee.wrs.com>
> In-Reply-To: <200005221742.KAA19115@kankakee.wrs.com>; from Mike Stump on Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:42:46AM -0700
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:42:46AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > Given this description, I think the default
> > should be off for targets that can only have fewer reloc bits than the
> > instruction it is replacing (if the number is sufficiently small).
> Um, the *default* is off. Period. One has to add stuff to the
> machine description before tail calls happen *at all*. That stuff
> includes the answer to the question "can I tail call to this function".
I was under the impression that we got to this position because
someone had added it to x86 and that that default was to use it, for
it to be on, and that the number of reloc bits was smaller than
before. Sorry if it isn't. Is my understanding incomplete?