[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrU_KFu7Tw3-pd1=VqOoR-OicQy6pg+cDMYoVg8v59uUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:38:26 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...hat.com>
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>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: gcc feature request / RFC: extra clobbered regs
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...hat.com> wrote:
> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
> a variable or passing as an argument) and loosing a track of it and than
> call it. How can RA know what the call clobbers actually. So for the
> function with the attributes we should prohibit use it as a value or make
> the attributes as a part of the function type, or at least say it is unsafe.
I think it should be part of the type. This shouldn't compile:
void func(void) __attribute__((used_reg("r12")));
void (*x)(void);
x = func;
--Andy
--
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