Georg-Johann Lay writes:
> On 02.08.2016 06:50, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
>>
>> Denis Chertykov writes:
>>
>>> 2016-08-01 15:17 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay :
Problem with -fcaller-saves is that there are situations where it triggers
an expensive frame just to store a
On 02.08.2016 06:50, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
Denis Chertykov writes:
2016-08-01 15:17 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay :
Problem with -fcaller-saves is that there are situations where it triggers
an expensive frame just to store a variable around a function call even
though
Denis Chertykov writes:
> 2016-08-01 15:17 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay :
>> Problem with -fcaller-saves is that there are situations where it triggers
>> an expensive frame just to store a variable around a function call even
>> though there are plenty of call-saved registers.
>>
2016-08-01 15:17 GMT+03:00 Georg-Johann Lay :
> Problem with -fcaller-saves is that there are situations where it triggers
> an expensive frame just to store a variable around a function call even
> though there are plenty of call-saved registers.
>
> Example:
>
> typedef
Problem with -fcaller-saves is that there are situations where it triggers an
expensive frame just to store a variable around a function call even though
there are plenty of call-saved registers.
Example:
typedef __UINT8_TYPE__ uint8_t;
extern uint8_t uart0_getc (void);
void foo (uint8_t