[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55930FB9.2070904@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:52:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, gcc@....gnu.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: gcc feature request / RFC: extra clobbered regs
On 06/30/2015 02:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> I'd say the most natural API for this would be to allow
>>> f{fixed,call-{used,saved}}-REG in target attribute.
>>
>> Either that or
>>
>> __attribute__((fixed(rbp,rcx),used(rax,rbx),saved(r11)))
>>
>> ... just to be shorter. Either way, I would consider this to be
>> desirable -- I have myself used this to good effect in a past life
>> (*cough* Transmeta *cough*) -- but not a high priority feature.
>
> I think I mean the per-function equivalent of -fcall-used-reg, so
> hpa's "used" suggestion would do the trick.
>
> I guess that clobbering the frame pointer is a non-starter, but five
> out of six isn't so bad. It would be nice to error out instead of
> producing "disastrous results", though, if another bad reg is chosen.
> (Presumably the PIC register on PIC builds would be an example of
> that.)
>
Clobbering the frame pointer is perfectly fine, as is the PIC register.
However, gcc might need to handle them as "fixed" rather than "clobbered".
-hpa
--
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