search for: pic_base

On Jan 3, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > I noticed that we generate code like this for i386 PIC: > > calll L0$pb > L0$pb: > popl %eax > movl %eax, -24(%ebp) ## 4-byte Spill > > I worry that this defeats the return address prediction for returns in the function because calls and returns no longer are matched. Yes, this will defeat the

I noticed that we generate code like this for i386 PIC: calll L0$pb L0$pb: popl %eax movl %eax, -24(%ebp) ## 4-byte Spill I worry that this defeats the return address prediction for returns in the function because calls and returns no longer are matched. From Intel's Optimization Reference Manual: "The return address stack mechanism augments the static and dynamic