Why 2.95.4 ? (and libscl)

Ian Jeffray ian at paradise-uk.net
Thu Feb 7 03:13:27 PST 2002


Nick Burrett wrote:

[porting 2.96]

> This would probably mean that we change the local variable references
> to be relative to `fp' rather than `sp'.  Though my suspicion is that
> if we do this, then we lose support for non-contiguous stack chunks.


That's pretty interesting.  I'd been discussing (or maybe just listening to
discussion ;) about support for reentrant code output from gcc which, iirc,
had a similar issue in that the workspace pointer would need to move.

It would be nice to get some of these varying issues noted down somewhere
as we may be able to crack several nuts with one stone.  Maybe. ;-)


Cheers,

I.






More information about the gcc mailing list