On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >Couldn't you do it with the extended form of the asm statement that
> >GCC supports? That gives a whole lot of control over how parameters
> >are passed in and out of the asm block. If the asm block in turn is a
> >function call (or syscall) instruction, that may do the job.
>
> Yes, you can do more or less anything with an asm. I thought Adam wanted a
> "clean" way to do this with function attributes or the like.
Would specifying the function as no_return avoid register saving?
This combined with a small asm block to associate registers to vaiables
might be what I'm looking for.
>
> (Actually, an asm that clobbers all registers might well bring the compiler to
> a sticky end. It can't always handle that sort of situation properly.)
Any tips o what behaviour will result from this (so I can keep an
eye out for it)? Also what optimisation levels are 'safe' for kernel
coding? I seem to remember some mention of optimisations on ARM gcc
producing broken code.
Cheers Adam
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
