Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote: > I'll stay with checking for larl - while I can imagine someone adding a > new conditional branch instruction, I don't see a need for another > larl-like instruction. Besides, this way the failure mode for an > unknown instruction would be producing an error, instead of silently > emitting code with unfixed prologue.
OK, fine with me. B.t.w. Andreas has checked in the sibcall fix, so you no longer should be seeing larl used for sibcalls. > I've updated and resubmitted the gold patch. Thanks! Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
