Steve Fink wrote:
[Apologies if you receive this twice,
No problemm, the duplicate filter in procmail takes care of it.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:19:35PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
When we want these kind of branches, then they must be more high level,
defining all possible branch targe
[Apologies if you receive this twice, but my messages from work
haven't been going through, so I'm resending everything now that I
have my home net connection back.]
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:19:35PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
>
> > bsr $I0
> >
> >It will complain that
Steve Fink wrote:
bsr $I0
It will complain that it can't fixup the label '$I0'.
I can't imagine, how to get a correct CFG with these kind of register
jump instructions. They are too low level, lacking any hint where they
might jump to.
When we want these kind of branches, then they mus
Steve Fink wrote:
In tracking this down, I also noticed that imcc seems to assume that
you will do a saveall/restoreall pair around bsr calls.
I have now a partial fix for this committed. When imcc sees a bsr *and*
knows the label (all is in one compilation unit) *and* when there is no
save
Steve Fink wrote:
IMCC doesn't handle bsr with non-constant args. A test program would
be something like
L: $I0 = addr L
bsr $I0
It will complain that it can't fixup the label '$I0'.
Yep. That's missing. I'll hvae a look at it. (But you could invoke a
Sub, which is ok IIRC).
In tr
