'broken words' misbehavior?

[Alan Modra]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 08:36:02PM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> time and in a code section), but I'd recommend x86 maintainers
> to consider whether now is the time to #define WORKING_DOT_WORD.

I dug around some old gcc sources, and it looks to me that i386 gcc as
early as 1.27 used 32-bit jump tables.  I'm not sure when i386 support
was added to gcc, but 1.22 doesn't do i386.  So practically from the
start of i386 gcc, there was no need for the broken word hackery.

Unless I'm missing something, i386 ought to have defined
WORKING_DOT_WORD a long time ago.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre