On 10/24/14 04:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.10.14 at 11:52, wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
For something in static storage, this seems OK. However, I think a hard
register variable ought to be lef
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.10.14 at 11:52, wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> For something in static storage, this seems OK. However, I think a hard
>>
>>> On 24.10.14 at 11:52, wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >> For something in static storage, this seems OK. However, I think a hard
>>> >> register variable ought to be left alone -- even if w
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> For something in static storage, this seems OK. However, I think a hard
>> >> register variable ought to be left alone -- even if we can't spill it to
>> >> a stack slot
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> For something in static storage, this seems OK. However, I think a hard
> >> register variable ought to be left alone -- even if we can't spill it to
> >> a stack slot today, there's a reasonable chance we might add that
> >> cap
>>> On 24.10.14 at 11:10, wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.10.14 at 20:13, wrote:
>>> On 10/23/14 01:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 23.10.14 at 08:50, wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:30:27AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Function (or more n
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.10.14 at 20:13, wrote:
>> On 10/23/14 01:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 23.10.14 at 08:50, wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:30:27AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Function (or more narrow) scope static variables (as well as
>>> On 23.10.14 at 20:13, wrote:
> On 10/23/14 01:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.10.14 at 08:50, wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:30:27AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
Function (or more narrow) scope static variables (as well as others not
placed on the stack) should also not have
On 10/23/14 01:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.10.14 at 08:50, wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:30:27AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
Function (or more narrow) scope static variables (as well as others not
placed on the stack) should also not have any effect on the stack
alignment. I noticed the iss
>>> On 23.10.14 at 08:50, wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:30:27AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Function (or more narrow) scope static variables (as well as others not
>> placed on the stack) should also not have any effect on the stack
>> alignment. I noticed the issue first with Linux'es dyna
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:30:27AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Function (or more narrow) scope static variables (as well as others not
> placed on the stack) should also not have any effect on the stack
> alignment. I noticed the issue first with Linux'es dynamic_pr_debug()
> construct using an 8-b
11 matches
Mail list logo
