Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Pete Popov wrote: > > > Try the attached patch instead. > > Apart from other changes why not simply s/bal/jal/? Your proposed code > is bad if ever to be built to a 64-bit object. Non-PIC jal isn't relocateable, the PIC jal wants a regular stack frame, and the end of the patch shows the 32bit assumption was already made earlier. :-) Thiemo
