From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29739 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2004 16:20:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29729 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2004 16:20:11 -0000 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040410162011.29728.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040410161002.14909.cesarb@nitnet.com.br> References: <20040410161002.14909.cesarb@nitnet.com.br> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/14909] tail call optimization does not work with indirect call X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00894.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-04-10 16:20 ------- Subject: Re: New: tail call optimization does not work with indirect call "cesarb at nitnet dot com dot br" writes: | (since I have nothing better to do, here's another sibcall bug) | | When compiling: | void g(void (*f)(void)) { f(); } | | With: | gcc -W -Wall -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -save-temps -c | | The result is: | g: | call *4(%esp) | ret | | It should be: | g: | jmp *4(%esp) Is that a wrong-code generation? I don't think so. I would suggest to close the PR. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14909