* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-20 21:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-20 21:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-20 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|arm-eabi |
Component|rtl-optimization |target
Known to fail|4.6.1, 4.6.2 |
Build|x86_64-redhat-linux |
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-20 21:26:44 UTC ---
I think this code is undefined. You are calling a weak function without
checking if it is null.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
2011-12-20 21:27 ` [Bug target/51643] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-20 21:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-20 21:49 ` sipych at gmail dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-20 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-20 21:27:15 UTC ---
Also the linker seems funny to replace a branch to null with a nop.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
2011-12-20 21:27 ` [Bug target/51643] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-20 21:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-20 21:49 ` sipych at gmail dot com
2011-12-20 22:11 ` sipych at gmail dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: sipych at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-20 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Osipenko <sipych at gmail dot com> 2011-12-20 21:39:11 UTC ---
This behavior is explicitly defined in ARM RealView compiler, and GCC seems try
to follow this convention.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-20 21:49 ` sipych at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-20 22:11 ` sipych at gmail dot com
2011-12-20 23:28 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: sipych at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-20 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Osipenko <sipych at gmail dot com> 2011-12-20 21:58:39 UTC ---
>From ARM EABI specification (doc: ARM IHI 0044A)
"On platforms that do not support dynamic pre-emption of symbols an unresolved
weak reference to a symbol relocated by R_ARM_CALL shall be treated as a jump
to the next instruction (the call becomes a no-op). The behaviour of
R_ARM_JUMP24 in these conditions is unspecified."
At least, tail call + epilogue shall not be replaced by (undefined) JUMP.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-20 22:11 ` sipych at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-20 23:28 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-12-20 23:51 ` sipych at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-12-20 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-12-20 22:34:43 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, sipych at gmail dot com wrote:
> "On platforms that do not support dynamic pre-emption of symbols an unresolved
> weak reference to a symbol relocated by R_ARM_CALL shall be treated as a jump
> to the next instruction (the call becomes a no-op). The behaviour of
> R_ARM_JUMP24 in these conditions is unspecified."
>
> At least, tail call + epilogue shall not be replaced by (undefined) JUMP.
That's an ABI specifying relocation handling, not an API specifying
semantics of C source code. The C semantics are as specified in the C
standard, i.e. undefined behavior if the call is executed; C is a
high-level language not a portable assembler and the semantics are those
of the C standard not those of particular instructions you might guess
have some relation to particular C operations. The EABI semantics say
what happens with a relocation that might have been generated from code
where the call is properly conditional in the C source, or might have been
generated from code with undefined behavior.
It would be valid for the compiler to rely on the EABI semantics to
optimize code generation for "if (wfunc) wfunc ();", for example, but
those semantics do not change the undefined nature of code that doesn't
condition the call.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-20 23:28 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-12-20 23:51 ` sipych at gmail dot com
2011-12-21 9:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: sipych at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-20 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Osipenko <sipych at gmail dot com> 2011-12-20 23:33:06 UTC ---
It seems reasonable to expect minimal consistency, either generating invalid
(zero for example) reference for any direct weak function call, better marking
it with "warning" or even "error" message, or not depending on the optimization
options.
In any case, the semantics of weak referencies is beyond of the C standard
scope,
so even "if( wfunc ) wfunc();" may be treated only in terms of reasonable
consistency.
EABI specification follows a simple rule: "call to undefined weak function do
nothing".
Just the same do "if( wfunc ) wfunc();", a little bit longer, if we believe
that undefined wfunc == 0 always, but not 0xDEADBEEF eventually when optimized.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-20 23:51 ` sipych at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-21 9:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-22 14:13 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-21 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target| |arm-eabi
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-21 09:53:24 UTC ---
Technically this bug is invalid (undefined is undefined, not consistent). ARM
maintainers may want to disallow tail/sibling calls to possibly weak targets.
The ABI is inconsistent itself, btw, as
weak_fn ();
beahaves different than
*(&weak_fn) ();
as I presume the linker cannot do anything for indirect calls to weak
functions.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-21 9:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-22 14:13 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-22 14:29 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-22 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2011-12-22
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-22 14:13 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-22 14:29 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-22 14:30 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-22 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-22 14:13:16 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 14:13:09 2011
New Revision: 182621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182621
Log:
PR target/51643
* arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Don't try to tailcall a
weak function on bare-metal EABI targets.
* gcc.target/arm/sibcall-2.c: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/sibcall-2.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-22 14:29 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-22 14:30 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-22 15:01 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-22 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-22 14:28:45 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 14:28:39 2011
New Revision: 182622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182622
Log:
PR target/51643
* arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Don't try to tailcall a
weak function on bare-metal EABI targets.
* gcc.target/arm/sibcall-2.c: New test.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/sibcall-2.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-22 14:30 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-22 15:01 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-22 17:33 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-22 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Version|4.6.2 |4.6.3
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-22 14:29:54 UTC ---
Fixed on 4.6 and trunk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-22 15:01 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-22 17:33 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-22 17:35 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-22 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-22 17:31:58 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 17:31:50 2011
New Revision: 182628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182628
Log:
PR target/51643
* arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Use DECL_WEAK in previous
change.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-22 17:33 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-22 17:35 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-22 21:40 ` sipych at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-22 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-22 17:33:04 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Dec 22 17:32:58 2011
New Revision: 182629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182629
Log:
PR target/51643
* arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Use DECL_WEAK in previous
change.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-22 17:35 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-22 21:40 ` sipych at gmail dot com
2011-12-23 0:40 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: sipych at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-22 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Osipenko <sipych at gmail dot com> 2011-12-22 21:31:56 UTC ---
Thanks, Richard!
It now works fine with -mabi=aapcs
Perhaps I don't understand some details, could you tell me why the
-mabi=aapcs-linux is not included in this fix?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-22 21:40 ` sipych at gmail dot com
@ 2011-12-23 0:40 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-23 0:45 ` sipych at gmail dot com
2012-06-08 8:58 ` jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-23 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-22 23:27:29 UTC ---
Because the ABI says it only works for bare metal.
On a system with shared libraries, you can't tell at static link time if a weak
symbol will be resolved by a shared library, so it has to left up to the
dynamic linker which will fill in a PLT stub. Once you have those, it's pretty
hard to make the call become a stub (and even if it were, it wouldn't be a NOP
(the linker would have to turn the call into something that simply returned as
the PLT sequence can't be patched). Tail-calling PLT sequences is perfectly
safe, so there's no reason not to perform the optimization.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-23 0:40 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-23 0:45 ` sipych at gmail dot com
2012-06-08 8:58 ` jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: sipych at gmail dot com @ 2011-12-23 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Osipenko <sipych at gmail dot com> 2011-12-23 00:40:13 UTC ---
Oh, I see, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/51643] Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option
2011-12-20 21:27 [Bug rtl-optimization/51643] New: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function with -O2/-O3 option sipych at gmail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-23 0:45 ` sipych at gmail dot com
@ 2012-06-08 8:58 ` jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-06-08 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #16 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 08:58:02 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Jun 8 08:57:53 2012
New Revision: 188332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188332
Log:
2012-06-08 Joey Ye <joey.ye@arm.com>
Backport r184442 from mainline
2012-02-21 Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
PR target/52294
* thumb2.md (thumb2_shiftsi3_short): Split register and
immediate shifts. For register shifts tie operands 0 and 1.
(peephole2 for above): Check that register-controlled shifts
have suitably tied operands.
Backport r183756 from mainline
2012-01-31 Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew.gretton-dann@arm.com>
* config/arm/thumb2.md (thumb2_mov_notscc): Use MVN for true
condition.
Backport r183349 from mainline
2012-01-20 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR target/51915
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_count_output_move_double_insns): Call
output_move_double on a copy of operands array.
Backport r183095 from mainline
2012-01-11 Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew.gretton-dann@arm.com>
* config/arm/arm.md (mov_notscc): Use MVN for false condition.
Backport r182628 from mainline
2011-12-21 Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
PR target/51643
* arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Use DECL_WEAK in previous
change.
Backport r182621 from mainline
2011-12-21 Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
PR target/51643
* arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Don't try to tailcall a
weak function on bare-metal EABI targets.
Testsuite:
Backport r183349 from mainline
2012-01-20 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR target/51915
* gcc.target/arm/pr51915.c: New test.
Backport r183095 from mainline
2012-01-11 Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew.gretton-dann@arm.com>
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20120110-1.c: New testcase.
Backport r182621 from mainline
2011-12-21 Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
PR target/51643
* gcc.target/arm/sibcall-2.c: New test.
Added:
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20120111-1.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr51915.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/sibcall-2.c
Modified:
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.arm
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/config/arm/thumb2.md
branches/ARM/embedded-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.arm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread