[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190226144730.GV32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:47:30 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I must confess to not being all that sympathetic to code that takes
> advantage of happenstance stack-frame layout. Is there some reason
> we need that?
Not that I'm aware; but if it gets this 'obvious' case wrong, I worry
what else it gets wrong.
At the very least we should get this fixed and compile a kernel with the
fixed compiler to see what (if anything) changes in the generated code
and analyse the changes (if any) to make sure we were ok (or not).
I mean; yes that example is UB, but the result is also clearly batshit
insane.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists