On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > 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. :-) Hmm, the joys of inconsistency -- oh well... Maciej
