* Torsten Duwe [2016-03-24 11:27:57]:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 03:44:55PM +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> > * Torsten Duwe [2016-03-23 16:58:58]:
> >
> > >
> > > Since nobody liked the extra stack frame nor its workarounds, here is
> > > the next attempt.
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 09:04 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 01:23:01PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On 24/03/16 02:58, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Heuristics are bad. The better they are, the more subtly the
> > >way they might fail.
> [...]
>
> This CR+4 code
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 03:44:55PM +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> * Torsten Duwe [2016-03-23 16:58:58]:
>
> >
> > Since nobody liked the extra stack frame nor its workarounds, here is
> > the next attempt. Assumptions:
> >
> > 1. Heuristics are bad. The better they are, the more
* Torsten Duwe [2016-03-23 16:58:58]:
>
> Since nobody liked the extra stack frame nor its workarounds, here is
> the next attempt. Assumptions:
>
> 1. Heuristics are bad. The better they are, the more subtly the
>way they might fail.
>
> 2. The TOC pointer is usually
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 01:23:01PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 24/03/16 02:58, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> >
> > 1. Heuristics are bad. The better they are, the more subtly the
> >way they might fail.
[...]
> I missed this yesterday, not on cc, but caught it on the list today
I replied to
On 24/03/16 02:58, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Since nobody liked the extra stack frame nor its workarounds, here is
> the next attempt. Assumptions:
>
> 1. Heuristics are bad. The better they are, the more subtly the
>way they might fail.
>
> 2. The TOC pointer is usually dividable by 4, if not
Since nobody liked the extra stack frame nor its workarounds, here is
the next attempt. Assumptions:
1. Heuristics are bad. The better they are, the more subtly the
way they might fail.
2. The TOC pointer is usually dividable by 4, if not by 8. An odd
value never occurs.
Conclusively,