[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84fc9c000911190752o27afbc31o8a6196ebdfc68d39@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:52:24 +0100
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
feng.tang@...el.com, "Fr??d??ric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jakub@...hat.com,
gcc@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2009 07:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> modified function start on a handful of functions only seen with gcc
>>> 4.4.x on x86 32 bit:
>>>
>>> push %edi
>>> lea 0x8(%esp),%edi
>>> and $0xfffffff0,%esp
>>> pushl -0x4(%edi)
>>> push %ebp
>>> mov %esp,%ebp
>>> ...
>>> call mcount
>>>
>>
>> The real questions is why we're aligning the stack in the kernel. It is
>> probably not what we want -- we don't use SSE for anything but a handful
>> of special cases in the kernel, and we don't want the overhead.
>
> It's likely because you have long long vars on the stack which is
> faster when they are aligned. -mno-stackrealign may do what you
> want (or may not, I have not checked). I assume you already
> use -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2.
Just checking it seems you must be using -mincoming-stack-boundary=2
instead but keep the preferred stack boundary at 4.
Richard.
--
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