From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12439 invoked by alias); 26 May 2011 18:41:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 12427 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2011 18:41:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 63.mail-out.ovh.net (HELO 63.mail-out.ovh.net) (91.121.185.56) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Thu, 26 May 2011 18:40:50 +0000 Received: (qmail 10213 invoked by uid 503); 26 May 2011 19:35:50 -0000 Received: from b9.ovh.net (HELO mail189.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.59) by 63.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 May 2011 19:35:49 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 May 2011 20:40:48 +0200 Received: from ip31.capo.montpellier-agglo.com (HELO ?192.168.10.116?) (lrouge@menta.fr@91.213.82.31) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 26 May 2011 20:40:47 +0200 Message-ID: <4DDE9EA9.5080206@menta.fr> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 20:29:00 -0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Laurent_Roug=E9?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Botcazou CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Reintroduce -mflat option on SPARC References: <4D64F83B.5060704@menta.fr> <4DA73D99.5000800@menta.fr> <201105171251.20272.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <201105181231.21495.ebotcazou@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <201105181231.21495.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11434357979697653321 X-Ovh-Remote: 91.213.82.31 (ip31.capo.montpellier-agglo.com) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg02095.txt.bz2 Dear Eric, In fact, I haven't tried to make big changes in how mflat option was implemented. From my point of view, the goal was to facilitate mflat option reintroduction first, and then improve it after. I hope you understand. I know there's some place to improve, maybe you have start to do it ? So why mflat is like that we should ask the questions to 'wilson' who did it in 92 (see revision 1275) ! Regards, Laurent. Le 18/05/2011 12:31, Eric Botcazou a écrit : >> Another question: why does the model hijack %i7 to use it as frame pointer, >> instead of just using %fp? AFAICS both are kept as fixed registers by the >> code so the model seems to be wasting 1 register (2 without frame pointer). > Related question: why saving the Local and In registers in the frame instead of > at their standard location, right above the stack pointer? It would seem to > me that the layout of the frame can be identical to the standard one.