[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170316185305.lk4pi3a7b5n6uqjd@treble>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:53:05 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mostly disable '-maccumulate-outgoing-args'
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:36:35PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:32:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:42:08 -0500
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > + ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS := 1
> > > + endif
> > > + endif
> > > +endif
> > > +
> > > +# Jump labels need '-maccumulate-outgoing-args' for gcc < 4.5.2 to prevent
> >
> > Can we make a test instead? I hate testing versions, and things get
> > backported all the time. We usually like to have a test case instead of
> > relying on versions. Not to mention, a newer gcc may one day break.
>
> Tests are generally better, but I'm not sure how to test for this
> cleanly. The test is rather big for embedding in a makefile:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22199
>
> Any ideas?
After some snooping I discovered there's some precedent for doing this
in the scripts/gcc-*.sh files. So maybe I'll add a test there and call
it from the Makefile.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists