So the idea was indeed stupid :) On Monday 09 May 2005 02:40, Paul Brook wrote: > No. The main problem with gcc3.4 was that we weren't using FORCE_RET > everywhere that we should. This has mostly been fixed now.
I see... [snip] > > I've got a solution for x86/x86-64 that's 95% complete, using the method > I suggested in a previous email. So, since ret is too small to be replaced with jump, you relocate the block following ret few bytes further, and retarget all relevant jumps? > I hope to be submitting a patch shortly. > I expect most other hosts (particularly the RISC based ones) to be much > simpler to fix. Nice. rgds Sebastian Kaliszewski _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
