Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 12.09.2008 18:19, ron minnich wrote:
>
>> W.r.t. Kevin's question: if we wrote stage1 as follows:
>>
>> stage1(){
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> disable_car();
>> stage1_after_car();
>> }
>>
>> How would people feel about that?
>>
>> There are still real concerns in my mind about lingering addresses in
>> registers that gcc might leave hanging around. The call nicely removes
>> the worries.
>>
>>
>
> In theory, gcc is free to reload esp from a cached register after
> disable_car. That would cause pretty explosions due to the stack pointer
> being in a now invalid location.
>
gcc is changing esp to absolute values? Why would it do that?
--
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] • http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
