[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1258655585.22249.751.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:33:05 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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>,
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, 2009-11-19 at 18:20 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> OK, I found it. There is a struct defined as
>
> struct entry {
> ...
> } __attribute__((__aligned__((1 << (4)))));
>
> and then in timer_stats_update_stats you have a local variable of type
> struct entry:
>
> void timer_stats_update_stats()
> {
> spinlock_t *lock;
> struct entry *entry, input;
>
> So, gcc has to 16-align the stack pointer to satisfy the alignment
> for struct entry.
It has to align the entire stack? Why not just the variable within the
stack?
-- Steve
--
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