[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081118233552.GP6703@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:35:52 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
heukelum@...tmail.fm, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,v2] x86_64: save_args out of line
> I don't think auto-generation is very a useful angle to take for this any
> time soon. Explicit (but simple) macros in the assembly is what I favor.
Do you mean macros that generate both the instruction and the CFI
or separate? The major disadvantage of doing it together in a
single macro is that it is not really readable for any assembler
programmer anymore, but starts becoming a Linux specific assembler
language. Likely not a good thing for maintenance. anyone who
wants to know the real assembler would need to read objdump -S
output, which is not nice.
Perhaps it would be a reasonable readability improvement to just use shorter
cfi macros which are not shouted?
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists