Why 2.95.4 ? (and libscl)
John.Tytgat at aaug.net
Thu Feb 7 16:03:31 PST 2002
In message <m34rkte5qz.fsf at nick.ws.noc.dsvr.net>
Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr.net> wrote:
> Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> writes:
> > - This SP vs FP variable access. Nick, if you can collect your
> > thoughts on this one, I'd be interested to hear why this change is
> > needed.
> Simply because it reduces the ARM backend code changes required for
> RISC OS down to a few lines rather than about 150Kb of diffs. This
> is not necessarily my laziness, but I think that by sticking to sp-based
> local variables, we will lose out in the long run.
> I would like to get an initial port of GCC 3.1 working based on fp-based
> variables then consider the issues that arise after.
I'm probably showing my ignorance here but would this change have any
influence on APCS-R/32 compliancy ? Or is this just a discussion how
local variables are addressed/managed in the GCC's ARM backend and doesn't
have any influence on interprocedural calling convention ?
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net ARM powered, RISC OS driven
More information about the gcc