https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
A secondary comment - the wiring up of the built-ins that allocate/deallocate
trampoline entries makes the underlying mechanism opaque to the middle end
consumer.
So, although the current example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-01 21:22 ---
This is why the PowerOpen ABI is good, it does not require stack based
trampolines.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-25 23:53 ---
Really there is no way to fix this without compiler help.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-26 00:44 ---
If you tried the page-of-functions idea, what would you do if you'd used all
the functions on the page and needed another one?
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-09-26 04:06 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
If you tried the page-of-functions idea, what would you do if you'd used all
the functions on the page and needed another one?
You'd do the same as if you'd used up all the stack space.
The
