[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84fc9c000911190757w42186dav1d3b0141bb6cf79b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:57:53 +0100
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>,
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, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 07:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> We're aligning the stack properly, as per the ABI requirements. Can't
>> you just fix the tracer?
>>
>
> "Per the ABI requirements?" We're talking 32 bits, here.
Hm, even with
void bar (int *);
void foo (void)
{
int x;
bar (&x);
}
gcc -S -O2 -m32 -mincoming-stack-boundary=2 t.c
we re-align the stack. That looks indeed bogus.
HJ, you invented all this code, what's the reason for the above?
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