[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <viy9pk4xossnb6m2v041qu00.1258665258503@email.android.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:14:18 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@...hat.com>
CC: rostedt@...dmis.org, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>,
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.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>,
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
Hence a new unconstrained option...
"Jeff Law" <law@...hat.com> wrote:
>On 11/19/09 12:50, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> Calling the profiler immediately at the entry point is clearly the more
>> sane option. It means the ABI is well-defined, stable, and independent
>> of what the actual function contents are. It means that ABI isn't the
>> normal C ABI (the __fentry__ function would have to preserve all
>> registers), but that's fine...
>>
>Note there are targets (even some old x86 variants) that required the
>profiling calls to occur after the prologue. Unfortunately, nobody
>documented *why* that was the case. Sigh.
>
>Jeff
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse any lack of formatting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists