[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30fb630e-2bba-43d3-8d80-4ad553d503ca@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 13:29:41 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Uecker <uecker@...raz.at>, Ralf Jung <post@...fj.de>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Ventura Jack <venturajack85@...il.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, airlied@...il.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, ej@...i.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
hch@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: C aggregate passing (Rust kernel policy)
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 04:33:19PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:47:22 +0000
> David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Except that (IIRC) it is actually valid for the compiler to write something
> > entirely unrelated to a memory location before writing the expected value.
> > (eg use it instead of stack for a register spill+reload.)
> > Not gcc doesn't do that - but the standard lets it do it.
>
> I call that a bug in the specification ;-)
Please feel free to write a working paper to get it changed. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists