> So i think with the various nits I pointed out the target independent
> stuff is good to go on the trunk. Then you can just iterate with the
> target guys to get those wrapped up.
OK, I'll do a pass on the entire patch, post a second version with the
required fixes, split into 2 parts as agree
On 07/25/2016 06:56 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Another UNITS_PER_WORD that I think ought to be
POINTER_SIZE/BITS_PER_UNIT. Probably worth a pass over the patch to
look for this throughout.
Yes, it was very likely enabled only on platforms with word-sized pointers.
That's what I suspected. Tha
> So does this require that every function have an 8-byte alignment
> boundary? or just those that appear in nested functions? If the
> former, how do you get routines written in assembler, or produced by
> third-party compilers, to comply?
The former. You need to be able to control what happen
On 25/07/16 14:25, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> If I understand how this is supposed to work then this is not
>> future-proof against changes to the architecture. The bottom two bits
>> in both AArch32 (arm) and AArch64 are reserved for future use by the
>> architecture; they must not be used by softwa
> If I understand how this is supposed to work then this is not
> future-proof against changes to the architecture. The bottom two bits
> in both AArch32 (arm) and AArch64 are reserved for future use by the
> architecture; they must not be used by software for tricks like this.
I see, thanks for
On 29/06/16 23:08, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Index: config/aarch64/aarch64.h
> ===
> --- config/aarch64/aarch64.h (revision 237789)
> +++ config/aarch64/aarch64.h (working copy)
> @@ -779,6 +779,9 @@ typedef struct
> correctly. */
> Should UNITS_PER_WORD here be POINTER_SIZE/BITS_PER_UNIT right?
Hmm, yes, presumably, it's the size of the static chain and so a pointer.
> Another UNITS_PER_WORD that I think ought to be
> POINTER_SIZE/BITS_PER_UNIT. Probably worth a pass over the patch to
> look for this throughout.
Yes, it
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> Jeff,
>
>> So just to be clear, once installed, for Ada we'll start using the
>> descriptor based scheme on the subset of targets below, which will
>> be an ABI change, right?
>
> Right.
>
>> If so and this goes in, we'll have to make sure t
Jeff,
> So just to be clear, once installed, for Ada we'll start using the
> descriptor based scheme on the subset of targets below, which will
> be an ABI change, right?
Right.
> If so and this goes in, we'll have to make sure to signal loud and
> wide about the ABI change at the project level
On 06/29/2016 04:08 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Hi,
this patch implements generic support for the elimination of stack trampolines
and, consequently, of the need to make the stack executable when pointers to
nested functions are used. That's done on a per-language and per-target basis
(i.e. there
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch implements generic support for the elimination of stack trampolines
> and, consequently, of the need to make the stack executable when pointers to
> nested functions are used. That's done on a per-language and per-target
11 matches
Mail list logo
