> -Original Message-
> From: Basile Starynkevitch
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 11:51
> To: Bob Dubner
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: GCC harm in ARM
>
> HEllo,
>
>
> Bob Dubner wrote on gcc@
> >
> > Thus, the statement
> >
HEllo,
Bob Dubner wrote on gcc@
>
> Thus, the statement
>
> CALL "foo"
>
> might be the equivalent, implemented in C, of
>
> extern foo(...); //External reference
> foo();
>
> or
>
> static foo(...); // Forward reference to a static
> function
> foo();
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 09:28
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Bob Dubner
> Subject: Re: harm in ARM
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:51 PM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > The
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:28:29 +0200
Richard Biener wrote:
> That means, the adjustment should end up unifying the FUNCTION_DECL
> used for all calls.
Thank you. Not to put words in his mouth, but I think that's what Bob
suspected.
> Btw, is there any way that the thing 'prog' calls can turn o
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:28 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:51 PM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > The COBOL FE emits code for a recent ARM VM that is definitely not what
> > the user or, ahem, the FE author intended. The observed behavior is
> > that the program enters a
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:51 PM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> The COBOL FE emits code for a recent ARM VM that is definitely not what
> the user or, ahem, the FE author intended. The observed behavior is
> that the program enters an infinite loop calling the main entry point,
> eventually exhausting
The COBOL FE emits code for a recent ARM VM that is definitely not what
the user or, ahem, the FE author intended. The observed behavior is
that the program enters an infinite loop calling the main entry point,
eventually exhausting the stack. The observed assembler code does or
does not refer to
