On 14.10.2008 23:35, Marc Jones wrote: > ron minnich wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger >>> Calling anything after disable_car() returns can only be done reliably >>> if the stack has not moved. You see, gcc is free to reorder stuff as it >>> sees fit and it could insert almost anything between disable_car() and >>> the call to stage1. >> >> you're right too. >> >> In any event, I have never been comfortable with returning from >> disable_car(), so away we go. > > OK, comment below the call that it should never return and/or put a > die() there as well to catch it if it did come back.
Will do so. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
