<div dir="ltr">Hi Tim,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the response. Even I thought this might be the result of tail call optimisation in O1, but with clang-3.4.2 this behaviour is not seen in O1, so wanted to know which change triggered this behaviour in O1 in clang-3.5.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Mayur</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Tim Northover <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tnorthover@apple.com" target="_blank">tnorthover@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Mayur,<br>
<br>
> On 24 Nov 2014, at 07:00, MAYUR PANDEY <<a href="mailto:mayur.p@samsung.com">mayur.p@samsung.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> In the assembly generated with O0, we are getting the "blx" instruction whereas with O1 we get "bx" (in 3.4.2 we used to get "blx" for both O0 and O1).<br>
><br>
> Is this because of this patch: [llvm] r214959 - ARM: do not generate BLX instructions on Cortex-M CPUs<br>
<br>
Isn't this just the usual tail call optimisations kicking in at O1? Or is there some problem with this behaviour that I'm missing (both variants seem to be supported on v5t).<br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
<br>
Tim.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Thanx & Regards <br></div>
<div><b>Mayur Pandey </b><br></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Lead Engineer<br></div><div>Samsung R&D Institute India<br>Bangalore<br>+91-9742959541<br><font color="#3333ff"></font><font color="#3333ff"> <br></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div></div>
</div>