On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 09:39 AM, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > && in_section != text_section
> > - && !unlikely_text_section_p (in_section)
> > + && (in_section && (in_section->common.flags & SECTION_CODE)) == 0
>
> You should
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:34:25PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 09:39 AM, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > && in_section != text_section
> > - && !unlikely_text_section_p (in_section)
> > + && (in_section && (in_section->common.flags & SECTION_CODE)) == 0
>
> You should
On 12/28/2011 09:39 AM, Michael Meissner wrote:
> && in_section != text_section
> - && !unlikely_text_section_p (in_section)
> + && (in_section && (in_section->common.flags & SECTION_CODE)) == 0
You should be able to delete the text_section test as well,
and in_section should *
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:45:35PM +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/12/19 上午 03:18, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 12/17/2011 10:36 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> >> I don't think it's that kind of problem; the powerpc backend uses
> >> unlikely_text_section_p(), which compares the passed in ar
On 2011/12/19 上午 03:18, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/17/2011 10:36 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> I don't think it's that kind of problem; the powerpc backend uses
>> unlikely_text_section_p(), which compares the passed in argument section
>> and the value of function_section_1(current_function_d
