On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I thought we had dropped support for the non-REGPARM case, so why don't
> we just make it work for REGPARM and be done with it?
>
I'm working on that ;-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
I would propose to try to see how we can #ifdef two different __mcount
assembly functions that would prepare the stack appropriately for each
REGPARM cases.
I have to confess that I've been testing this mostly on x86_64, which
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> I would propose to try to see how we can #ifdef two different __mcount
> assembly functions that would prepare the stack appropriately for each
> REGPARM cases.
>
I have to confess that I've been testing this mostly on x86_64, which
doesn't have t
* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> MCOUNT will disable the regparm parameters of the i386 compile
> options. When doing so, this breaks the prototype of do_IRQ
> where the fastcall must be explicitly called.
>
> Also fixed some whitespace damage in the call to do_IRQ.
>
I would propos
MCOUNT will disable the regparm parameters of the i386 compile
options. When doing so, this breaks the prototype of do_IRQ
where the fastcall must be explicitly called.
Also fixed some whitespace damage in the call to do_IRQ.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/
5 matches
Mail list logo