Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "cfa_restor".
Did you mean:
cfa_restore
2009 Sep 18
2
[LLVMdev] OT: intel darwin losing primary target status
...ember): New.
(compute_barrier_args_size_1): Remove sibcall check.
(dwarf2out_frame_debug_def_cfa): New.
(dwarf2out_frame_debug_adjust_cfa): New.
(dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_offset): New.
(dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_register): New.
(dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_restore): New.
(dwarf2out_frame_debug): Handle REG_CFA_* notes.
(dwarf2out_begin_epilogue): New.
(dwarf2out_frame_debug_restore_state): New.
(dw_cfi_oprnd1_desc): Handle DW_CFA_remember_state,
DW_CFA_restore_state.
(output_cfi_directive): Likewise.
(...
2009 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] OT: intel darwin losing primary target status
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:28:15AM -0700, Nick Kledzik wrote:
>> So, when these test cases are run, is the binary linked against /usr/
>> lib/libgcc_s.10.5.dylib? or against some just built libgcc_s.
>> 10.5.dylib?
>> or against some just build libgcc_s.dylib? If either of the
>> latter, then
>> if you
2009 Sep 18
4
[LLVMdev] OT: intel darwin losing primary target status
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:28:15AM -0700, Nick Kledzik wrote:
> So, when these test cases are run, is the binary linked against /usr/
> lib/libgcc_s.10.5.dylib? or against some just built libgcc_s.10.5.dylib?
> or against some just build libgcc_s.dylib? If either of the latter, then
> if you changed the FSF build of libgcc_s for darwin to have the right
> magic symbols, then