[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911191704110.24119@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:06:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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, 19 Nov 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > There is no real obvious reason why the edi magic needs to be done
> > _before_
> >
> > push %ebp
> > mov %esp,%ebp
>
> Sure there is: unless you do the adjustment first %ebp won't be 16-aligned.
And why is this not done in 99% of the functions in the kernel, just
in this one and some random others ?
> We're aligning the stack properly, as per the ABI requirements. Can't
> you just fix the tracer?
Where is that ABI requirement that
push %ebp
needs to happen on an aligned stack ?
And why is this something GCC did not care about until GCC4.4 ?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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