On 08/07/15 22:15, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/08/2015 02:51 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:22:34AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:36:31AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:23:09AM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
For other archs,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:02:06AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
This isn't going to reliably work for ARM or AArch64. If the only call
within a leaf function is via the ASM the compiler doesn't guarantee to
ensure the stack is aligned to the ABI requirements.
Those archs have a link
On 10/07/15 16:00, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 10/07/15 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:02:06AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
This isn't going to reliably work for ARM or
On 10/07/15 16:16, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 10/07/15 16:00, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Richard Earnshaw
richard.earns...@foss.arm.com wrote:
On 10/07/15 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:02:06AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
This
On 10/07/15 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:02:06AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
This isn't going to reliably work for ARM or AArch64. If the only call
within a leaf function is via the ASM the compiler doesn't guarantee to
ensure the stack is aligned to the ABI
On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Richard Earnshaw richard.earns...@foss.arm.com
wrote:
On 10/07/15 13:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:02:06AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
This isn't going to reliably work for ARM or AArch64. If the only call
within a leaf
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:44:15PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:53:49PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
I've been asked to look into the item one of
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1990397 and found out
that at least shrink-wrapping happily
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:23:09AM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
For other archs, e.g. x86-64, you can do
register void *sp asm(%sp);
asm volatile(call func : +r(sp));
snip
Well, I only have had a quick look at where things go wrong and have
not spent much time thinking about
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 02:25:34PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/07/2015 11:53 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
I've been asked to look into the item one of
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1990397 and found out
that at least shrink-wrapping happily moves prologue past an asm
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:36:31AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:23:09AM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
For other archs, e.g. x86-64, you can do
register void *sp asm(%sp);
asm volatile(call func : +r(sp));
snip
Well, I only have had a quick look
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:22:34AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
Writing the asm with a clobber of the stack pointer causes all stack
accesses to go via the frame pointer, which causes pretty horrible
code.
As far as I can tell, most (but not all) kernel stack accesses already
occur via
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:37:35AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:22:34AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
Writing the asm with a clobber of the stack pointer causes all stack
accesses to go via the frame pointer, which causes pretty horrible
code.
As far as
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 04:14:20PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:51:12PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
For other archs, e.g. x86-64, you can do
register void *sp asm(%sp);
asm volatile(call func : +r(sp));
I've found that putting
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:22:34AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:36:31AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:23:09AM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
For other archs, e.g. x86-64, you can do
register void *sp asm(%sp);
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:51:12PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
For other archs, e.g. x86-64, you can do
register void *sp asm(%sp);
asm volatile(call func : +r(sp));
I've found that putting sp in the clobber list also seems to work:
asm volatile(call func
On 07/08/2015 02:51 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:22:34AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:36:31AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:23:09AM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
For other archs, e.g. x86-64, you can do
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:15:12PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
For other archs, e.g. x86-64, you can do
register void *sp asm(%sp);
asm volatile(call func : +r(sp));
I've found that putting sp in the clobber list also seems to work:
asm volatile(call func : : : sp);
This syntax is
Hi,
I've been asked to look into the item one of
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1990397 and found out
that at least shrink-wrapping happily moves prologue past an asm
statement which can be bad if the asm statement contains a call
instruction.
Am I right concluding that this is a
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:53:49PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
I've been asked to look into the item one of
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1990397 and found out
that at least shrink-wrapping happily moves prologue past an asm
statement which can be bad if the asm statement
On 07/07/2015 11:53 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
I've been asked to look into the item one of
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1990397 and found out
that at least shrink-wrapping happily moves prologue past an asm
statement which can be bad if the asm statement contains a call
20 matches
Mail list logo
