> To some degree linux-arch would be a good list for it, but it's closed,
> even to monitor.
linux-arch is only for architecture code, but yes it serves a similar
purpose. But it's very specialized. What is discussed there is unlikely
to be of much interest to most people.
I was thinking of a
+= -pipe -msoft-float -mregparm=3 -freg-struct-return
# prevent gcc from keeping the stack 16 byte aligned
CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2)
Why is this i386 specific?
Because virtually all other architectures have it as their ABI default,
anyway, and ABI selection should
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 22 2007 19:36, Andi Kleen wrote:
BTW would it make sense to have a special announcement list for such changes?
A changelog in the kernel tree would be helpful. A real changelog that is,
not that info blob located at /Documentation/Changes.
I presume you're
On Feb 22 2007 19:36, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>BTW would it make sense to have a special announcement list for such changes?
A changelog in the kernel tree would be helpful. A real changelog that is,
not that info blob located at /Documentation/Changes.
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:39:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code;
much better than using a pointer.
Yes, but
gt; +CFLAGS += -pipe -msoft-float -mregparm=3 -freg-struct-return
>
> # prevent gcc from keeping the stack 16 byte aligned
> CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2)
Why is this i386 specific?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:39:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
> > them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code;
> > much better than using a pointer.
>
> Yes, but
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
> them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code;
> much better than using a pointer.
Yes, but specifically, are there any pieces of assembler which return
structures? It appears
Andi Kleen wrote:
I didn't think we had any that returned structures.
Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code; much
better than using a pointer.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
> I guess people maintaining external Makefiles without Kbuild
> are in for a nasty surprise again though.
that 1) shouldn't be needed at all for 2.6 and 2) is fragile as heck no
matter, I don't think anyone still is doing that... I sure hope that if
anyone still does it that they have no users
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:38:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Subject: [patch] x86: add -freg-struct-return to CFLAGS
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge suggested the use of -freg-struct-return, which does
> structure-returns (such as when usin
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:09:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Do we know how many gcc bugs this has? (regparm used to have many)
> > other than that.. sounds like a win...
> >
>
> The documentation suggests that its the preferred mode of operation, and
>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:09:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Do we know how many gcc bugs this has? (regparm used to have many)
> > other than that.. sounds like a win...
> >
>
> The documentation suggests that its the preferred mode of operation, and
>
Subject: [patch] x86: add -freg-struct-return to CFLAGS
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jeremy Fitzhardinge suggested the use of -freg-struct-return, which does
structure-returns (such as when using pte_t) in registers instead of on
the stack.
that is indeed so, and this option r
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do we have much assembler which cares about the struct return
> > calling convention? If not, it should be a fairly easy test.
>
> is there an attribute to turn it off? because if so we should just
> make that part of "asmlinkage" (not
" (not that I know much code using structs
> in asm)
>
There doesn't appear to be; just -freg-struct-return and
-fpcc-struct-return.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordom
> Do we have much assembler which cares about the struct return calling
> convention? If not, it should be a fairly easy test.
is there an attribute to turn it off? because if so we should just make
that part of "asmlinkage" (not that I know much code using structs
in asm)
--
if you want
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Do we know how many gcc bugs this has? (regparm used to have many)
> other than that.. sounds like a win...
>
The documentation suggests that its the preferred mode of operation, and
that its the default on platforms where gcc is the primary compiler. So
the fact
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 17:28 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> We have a number of functions which return small structures (such as
> pte_t). It seems that the kernel is not compiled with
> -freg-struct-return, so all these small structures are being returned
> via the stack,
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 17:28 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
We have a number of functions which return small structures (such as
pte_t). It seems that the kernel is not compiled with
-freg-struct-return, so all these small structures are being returned
via the stack, even though they would
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Do we know how many gcc bugs this has? (regparm used to have many)
other than that.. sounds like a win...
The documentation suggests that its the preferred mode of operation, and
that its the default on platforms where gcc is the primary compiler. So
the fact that
Do we have much assembler which cares about the struct return calling
convention? If not, it should be a fairly easy test.
is there an attribute to turn it off? because if so we should just make
that part of asmlinkage (not that I know much code using structs
in asm)
--
if you want to
structs
in asm)
There doesn't appear to be; just -freg-struct-return and
-fpcc-struct-return.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we have much assembler which cares about the struct return
calling convention? If not, it should be a fairly easy test.
is there an attribute to turn it off? because if so we should just
make that part of asmlinkage (not that I know
Subject: [patch] x86: add -freg-struct-return to CFLAGS
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Fitzhardinge suggested the use of -freg-struct-return, which does
structure-returns (such as when using pte_t) in registers instead of on
the stack.
that is indeed so, and this option reduced
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:09:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Do we know how many gcc bugs this has? (regparm used to have many)
other than that.. sounds like a win...
The documentation suggests that its the preferred mode of operation, and
that its the
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:09:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Do we know how many gcc bugs this has? (regparm used to have many)
other than that.. sounds like a win...
The documentation suggests that its the preferred mode of operation, and
that its the
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:38:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Subject: [patch] x86: add -freg-struct-return to CFLAGS
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremy Fitzhardinge suggested the use of -freg-struct-return, which does
structure-returns (such as when using pte_t) in registers instead
I guess people maintaining external Makefiles without Kbuild
are in for a nasty surprise again though.
that 1) shouldn't be needed at all for 2.6 and 2) is fragile as heck no
matter, I don't think anyone still is doing that... I sure hope that if
anyone still does it that they have no users
Andi Kleen wrote:
I didn't think we had any that returned structures.
Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code; much
better than using a pointer.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code;
much better than using a pointer.
Yes, but specifically, are there any pieces of assembler which return
structures? It appears there
-mregparm=3 -freg-struct-return
# prevent gcc from keeping the stack 16 byte aligned
CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2)
Why is this i386 specific?
cu
Adrian
--
Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:39:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code;
much better than using a pointer.
Yes, but specifically,
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:39:04AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Sometimes returning small structures is really nice. If you can pass
them in registers, it's often generates the fastest possible code;
much better than using a pointer.
Yes, but
On Feb 22 2007 19:36, Andi Kleen wrote:
BTW would it make sense to have a special announcement list for such changes?
A changelog in the kernel tree would be helpful. A real changelog that is,
not that info blob located at /Documentation/Changes.
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 22 2007 19:36, Andi Kleen wrote:
BTW would it make sense to have a special announcement list for such changes?
A changelog in the kernel tree would be helpful. A real changelog that is,
not that info blob located at /Documentation/Changes.
I presume you're
+= -pipe -msoft-float -mregparm=3 -freg-struct-return
# prevent gcc from keeping the stack 16 byte aligned
CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2)
Why is this i386 specific?
Because virtually all other architectures have it as their ABI default,
anyway, and ABI selection should
To some degree linux-arch would be a good list for it, but it's closed,
even to monitor.
linux-arch is only for architecture code, but yes it serves a similar
purpose. But it's very specialized. What is discussed there is unlikely
to be of much interest to most people.
I was thinking of a
We have a number of functions which return small structures (such as
pte_t). It seems that the kernel is not compiled with
-freg-struct-return, so all these small structures are being returned
via the stack, even though they would fit into registers.
Is there a reason for this? Would -freg
We have a number of functions which return small structures (such as
pte_t). It seems that the kernel is not compiled with
-freg-struct-return, so all these small structures are being returned
via the stack, even though they would fit into registers.
Is there a reason for this? Would -freg
40 matches
Mail list logo
