Re: Another gcc corruption bug (was Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings)

2016-10-13 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 07:57:41PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On 10/13/2016 02:46 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:38:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > : > > >0: 55 push %rbp > > >1: 48 89 e5

Re: Another gcc corruption bug (was Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings)

2016-10-13 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 07:57:41PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On 10/13/2016 02:46 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:38:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > : > > >0: 55 push %rbp > > >1: 48 89 e5

Re: Another gcc corruption bug (was Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings)

2016-10-13 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On 10/13/2016 02:46 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:38:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:51:46 AM CEST Josh Poimboeuf wrote: Notice how it just falls off the end of the function. We had a similar bug before:

Re: Another gcc corruption bug (was Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings)

2016-10-13 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On 10/13/2016 02:46 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:38:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:51:46 AM CEST Josh Poimboeuf wrote: Notice how it just falls off the end of the function. We had a similar bug before:

Another gcc corruption bug (was Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings)

2016-10-13 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:38:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:51:46 AM CEST Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Notice how it just falls off the end of the function. We had a similar > > bug before: > > > >

Another gcc corruption bug (was Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: avoid -mtune=atom for objtool warnings)

2016-10-13 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:38:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:51:46 AM CEST Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Notice how it just falls off the end of the function. We had a similar > > bug before: > > > >