From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9455 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2014 04:24:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9323 invoked by uid 89); 11 Oct 2014 04:24:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:24:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9B4O0jp026028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:24:00 -0400 Received: from pike.twiddle.home (vpn-50-254.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.50.254]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9B4NxgZ017226; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 00:23:59 -0400 Message-ID: <5438B0DD.70309@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 04:24:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Collingbourne , Ian Lance Taylor CC: gcc-patches , "libffi-discuss@sourceware.org" , "gofrontend-dev@googlegroups.com" Subject: Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 03/13] HACK! Allow the static chain to be set from C References: <1412973773-3942-1-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> <1412973773-3942-4-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 On 10/10/2014 06:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > A colleague has suggested a perhaps nicer syntax: > > __builtin_call_chain(pointer, call) where call must be a call expression I like this. Unlike the other suggestions, it doesn't mess with the parsing of the "regular" part of the function call. And, depending on what point the builtin is lowered and applied to the AST, it might not require any parsing changes at all. I'll have a look at this next week. Thanks. r~