On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:18:45AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:45PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:45PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on i386 since it links
> > > with userspace code, so if assembler code uses
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:45PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on i386 since it links
> > with userspace code, so if assembler code uses this calling convention
> > we need the C
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:45PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on i386 since it links
with userspace code, so if assembler code uses this calling convention
we need the C prototype of it
* Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:45PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on i386 since it links
with userspace code, so if assembler code uses this
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:18:45AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:45PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on i386 since it
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on i386 since it links
> with userspace code, so if assembler code uses this calling convention
> we need the C prototype of it annotated accordingly.
We're not talking about a global
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:45:43PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > the removal of FASTCALL is fine: the default (and only) compiler model
> > for x86 (32-bit) is regparm(3), so the regparm(3) macro is equivalent to
> > the empty one in linux/linkage.h.
> >...
>
> But please ensure that they stay
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 02:57:55PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 23:45 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100,
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 23:45 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 23:27 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, but if this patch is acceptable, then there is no more places in
> > the tree that define the FASTCALL macro, other than the empty default
> > in include/linux/linkage.h. So I think a
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
> > > be omitted as well and let the linux/linkage.h version
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
> > be omitted as well and let the linux/linkage.h version get picked up
> > instead.
>
> no, we cannot remove them
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
> be omitted as well and let the linux/linkage.h version get picked up
> instead.
no, we cannot remove them - asmlinkage is needed for the syscall entry
(and other entry
Adding LKML to CC
Remove definitions of FASTCALL/fastcall from linkage_32 as compiled with
-regparm=3 by default since 2.6.20 and should no longer be needed.
CONFIG X86_64 and CONFIG_X86_ALIGNMENT_16 are mutually exclusive as found
in Kconfig.cpu so it should be fine to test them separately.
Adding LKML to CC
Remove definitions of FASTCALL/fastcall from linkage_32 as compiled with
-regparm=3 by default since 2.6.20 and should no longer be needed.
CONFIG X86_64 and CONFIG_X86_ALIGNMENT_16 are mutually exclusive as found
in Kconfig.cpu so it should be fine to test them separately.
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
be omitted as well and let the linux/linkage.h version get picked up
instead.
no, we cannot remove them - asmlinkage is needed for the syscall entry
(and other entry code) to
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
be omitted as well and let the linux/linkage.h version get picked up
instead.
no, we cannot remove them - asmlinkage
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
be omitted as well and let the linux/linkage.h version get picked up
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 23:27 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, but if this patch is acceptable, then there is no more places in
the tree that define the FASTCALL macro, other than the empty default
in include/linux/linkage.h. So I think a second step
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if the definition of asmlinkage and prevent_tail_call can
be
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 23:45 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 02:57:55PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 23:45 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Harvey Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:45:43PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
the removal of FASTCALL is fine: the default (and only) compiler model
for x86 (32-bit) is regparm(3), so the regparm(3) macro is equivalent to
the empty one in linux/linkage.h.
...
But please ensure that they stay in
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
UML can't switch to the regparm(3) convention on i386 since it links
with userspace code, so if assembler code uses this calling convention
we need the C prototype of it annotated accordingly.
We're not talking about a global
26 matches
Mail list logo
