On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > you should compile your code with -maccumu
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > you should compile your code with -maccumulate-outgoing-args, and there's
> > > no need to use -mtune=generic. Is that right?
> >
> > Seem
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Ingo, Thomas and Linus,
> >
> > I know Thomas did a patch
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:01:57PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Just compiled with -mincoming-stack-boundary=4 and the problem goes
> > away as gcc now thinks that the incoming stack is already 16 byte
> > aligned. But that m
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > While testing various kernel configs we found out that the problem
> > > comes and goes. Finally I sta
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > While testing various kernel configs we found out that the problem
> > comes and goes. Finally I started to compare the gcc command line
> > options and after some fidd
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/19/09 15:43, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:25 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Having said all that, I don't expect to personally be looking at the
> > > problem, given the list of other codegen issues that need to be looked
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > Note that I only can reproduce the issue with
> > -mincoming-stack-boundary=2, not with -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2.
>
> Since you can reproduce it with -mincoming-stack-boundary=2, I woul
> sugges
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I bet other people than just the kernel use the mcount hook for subtler
> > things than just doing profiles. And even if they don't, the quoted code
> > generation is just crazy _crap_.
>
> For the kernel, if the only case is that timer_stat.c thing
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> OK, I found it. There is a struct defined as
>
> struct entry {
> ...
> } __attribute__((__aligned__((1 << (4);
>
> and then in timer_stats_update_stats you have a local variable of type
> struct entry:
>
> void timer_stats_update_stats()
> {
> s
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Note that I only can reproduce the issue with
> -mincoming-stack-boundary=2, not with -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2.
> And
> you didn't provide us with a testcase either ... so please open
> a bugzilla and attach preprocessed source of a file that
> sho
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Umm. But it still does, doesn't it? That
>
> pushl -0x4(%edi)
> push %ebp
>
> should do it - the "-0x4(%edi)" thing seems to be trying to reload the
> return address. No?
>
> Maybe I misread the code - but regardless, it does look lik
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> There is no real obvious reason why the edi magic needs to be done
> >>> _before_
> >>>
> >
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > There is no real obvious reason why the edi magic needs to be done
> > _before_
> >
> > push %ebp
> > mov%esp,%ebp
>
> Sure there is: unless you do the adjustment first %eb
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Can the GCC folks please shed some light on this:
standard function start:
push %ebp
mov%esp, %ebp
call mcount
modified function start on a handful of functions only seen with gcc
4.4.x on x86 32 bit
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:21 +, Al Viro wrote:
> Now, there's another question: how do we get there? Or, at least, from
> current void (*)(unsigned long) to void (*)(void *)...
I think the real solution should be
void (*function)(struct timer_list *timer);
and hand the timer itself
16 matches
Mail list logo
