https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gist.github.com/dau |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
--- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #5)
> maybe there are workarounds glibc could do to prevent tco without needing a
> new attribute...
X-posted to Glibc BZ:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov ---
As this is not a GCC bug I suggest you
* close this issue (as not-a-bug?)
* report to Glibc folks (perhaps they could do more checking of return address
or at least document their calling convention
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
