Hi Gilad,
On 09/02/2013 02:33 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Vineet Gupta
> wrote:
>> Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
>> unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
> More out of curiosity to understand
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Vineet Gupta
wrote:
>
> Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
> unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
More out of curiosity to understand the platform better than actual
review - can you explain a little
On 08/30/2013 08:50 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/30/2013 12:48 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> If we had ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE (def_bool n), we could potentially
>> remove
>> ARCH_FRAME_POINTER too:
>> The issue is some (sparc, c6x...) which are neither in #1 or #2, and not
>> present
>>
On 08/30/2013 08:50 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 08/30/2013 12:48 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
If we had ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE (def_bool n), we could potentially
remove
ARCH_FRAME_POINTER too:
The issue is some (sparc, c6x...) which are neither in #1 or #2, and not
present
in
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Vineet Gupta
vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
More out of curiosity to understand the platform better than actual
review -
Hi Gilad,
On 09/02/2013 02:33 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Vineet Gupta
vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
More out of
On 08/30/2013 12:48 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> If we had ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE (def_bool n), we could potentially
> remove
> ARCH_FRAME_POINTER too:
>
> 1. arches which explicitly select ARCH_FRAME_POINTER (xtensa, parisc, arm64,
> x86,
> unicore32, tile) could just drop that select.
>
[+linux-arch and other arch maintainers]
On 08/29/2013 08:48 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 01:31 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
>> unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
>> Thus it's explicit usage on
[+linux-arch and other arch maintainers]
On 08/29/2013 08:48 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 08/27/2013 01:31 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
Thus it's explicit usage on ARC is
On 08/30/2013 12:48 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
If we had ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE (def_bool n), we could potentially
remove
ARCH_FRAME_POINTER too:
1. arches which explicitly select ARCH_FRAME_POINTER (xtensa, parisc, arm64,
x86,
unicore32, tile) could just drop that select.
2.
On 08/29/2013 08:48 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> I assume you're sending this my way since getmaintainer.pl has me tagged
> I moved a bunch of code in there. :)
Indeed :-)
> The Kconfig.debug stuff has no real maintainer. It would probably be OK
> if you just stick this in your architecture's
On 08/27/2013 01:31 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
> unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
> Thus it's explicit usage on ARC is discouraged (gcc is free to use it,
> for some tricky stack frames even if
Ping ?
-Vineet
On 08/27/2013 02:01 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
> unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
> Thus it's explicit usage on ARC is discouraged (gcc is free to use it,
> for some tricky stack frames
Ping ?
-Vineet
On 08/27/2013 02:01 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
Thus it's explicit usage on ARC is discouraged (gcc is free to use it,
for some tricky stack frames even
On 08/27/2013 01:31 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Frame pointer on ARC doesn't serve the conventional purpose of stack
unwinding due to the typical way ABI designates it's usage.
Thus it's explicit usage on ARC is discouraged (gcc is free to use it,
for some tricky stack frames even if
On 08/29/2013 08:48 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
I assume you're sending this my way since getmaintainer.pl has me tagged
I moved a bunch of code in there. :)
Indeed :-)
The Kconfig.debug stuff has no real maintainer. It would probably be OK
if you just stick this in your architecture's next git
16 matches
Mail list logo
