Hi Richard,
We wrote:
> Your patch changes behavior
> in multiple places of the compiler, which is not acceptable.
I don't change behavior of compiler since option "-mpush-args" is
passed to compiler by default. We do change compiler behavior if only
option "-mno-push-args" was passed to compile
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> It looks that i had to formulate my notes more precisely - the issue
> with which one our customer met is that there are plenty calls of C++
> functions with member class function arguments for which an order of
> call is essent
Hi Ian,
It looks that i had to formulate my notes more precisely - the issue
with which one our customer met is that there are plenty calls of C++
functions with member class function arguments for which an order of
call is essential (see e.g. attached testy-case on C that emulates it.
So I only c
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>
> This is simple fix that is aimed to help users in porting their
> applications to x86 platforms which rely on an order of function
> argument evaluation. To preserve direct order of argument evaluation
> they need to be added additional op
Hi All,
This is simple fix that is aimed to help users in porting their
applications to x86 platforms which rely on an order of function
argument evaluation. To preserve direct order of argument evaluation
they need to be added additional option '-mno-push-args' to compile
that looks reasonable pr
