[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306490709.26257.4.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 11:05:09 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Do not allow unaligned accesses when
CONFIG_ALIGNMENT_TRAP
Hi Andi,
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 22:10 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > It is possible that -fconserve-stack is still valuable on ARM given that
> > it is also used with -mno-unaligned-access for other things than
> > structure packing on the stack, and therefore its merits can be debated
> > independently from the alignment issue at hand.
>
> The big advantage of -fconserve-stack is that it throttles the inliner
> if the inlining
> would cause too much stack growth. This is something you likely want
> on ARM too, especially as code gets more and more complex.
Do you have any concrete examples of -fconserve-stack giving an overall
win that isn't in the noise? The fact that the GCC documentation
explicitly states that enabling the option can lead to `making the
program slower' does make me question why we're enabling it in the first
place.
>>From private conversation, the GCC guys don't seem to think this is a
bug so I'm reluctant to open a bugzilla ticket.
Will
--
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