Why 2.95.4 ? (and libscl)

John Tytgat 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.
-- 
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home                                 BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net                             ARM powered, RISC OS driven



More information about the gcc mailing list