On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 07:12:45PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>
> We do file the bugs, but we recognize that 1) the fix won't
> propagate for months, if that and 2) requiring a compiler update
> decreases our testing base which is the most important thing we
> have.
>
> Do you ge
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Miller
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC
To: phco...@gmail.com
From: "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko"
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 23:04:00 +0200
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:17
From: "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko"
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:08:34 +0200
> I can't agree with designating nested functions as root issue. Imagine
> tomorrow we discover a bug in "for" loop compiling. This wouldn't be a
> reason to replace all "for"s with "while"s. The root issue is compiler
> b
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>> #include
>>>
>>> void foo (int a, int b, void (*hook) (int aa, int bb, int cc))
>>> {
>>> b += a;
>>> hook (a, b, a + b);
>>> }
>>>
>>> void qq (int a)
>>> {
>>> auto void q1 (int aa, int bb, int cc);
>>> void q1 (int aa, int bb, int cc
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 03.09.2009, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:20:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__
>> > ((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 03.09.2009, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:20:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__
>> > ((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forge
Am Donnerstag, den 03.09.2009, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:20:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__
> > ((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forget to add -Os so it still uses stack
> > to store value). An
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:20:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__
> ((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forget to add -Os so it still uses stack
> to store value). And the bug is still there ! Try this test program:
Thanks Bean. I have opened a
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:26 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yves Blusseau
> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:30:01 +0200
>
>>
>> Le 1 sept. 09 à 17:43, Bean a écrit :
>>
>>> IMO, if we are to tackle the NESTED_FUNC_ATTR issue, we should do it
>>> properly by removing nested function, this also has other
> Hi,
>
> Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__
> ((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forget to add -Os so it still uses stack
> to store value). And the bug is still there ! Try this test program:
I confirm with gcc-4.4
This is a grave problem then. This check was added by Marco Gerar
Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__
((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forget to add -Os so it still uses stack
to store value). And the bug is still there ! Try this test program:
Compile with:
gcc -m32 -mregparm=3 -Os test.c
./a.out
10 31 -6674368
gcc is 4.3.4 from debian.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Bean wrote:
> I make an assembly dump of the code generated by gcc-4.2. Apparently,
> the "FIX" is achieved by ignoring the regparm attribute at all.
> __attribute__ ((__regparm__ (3))) doesn't have any effect any more, it
> always pass the parameters on the stack.
From: Yves Blusseau
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:30:01 +0200
>
> Le 1 sept. 09 à 17:43, Bean a écrit :
>
>> IMO, if we are to tackle the NESTED_FUNC_ATTR issue, we should do it
>> properly by removing nested function, this also has other advantages,
>> like allowing to run tools on systems like OSX
Le 1 sept. 09 à 17:43, Bean a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
Serbinenko wrote:
Hello. NESTED_ATTR_FUNC was introduced 6 years ago to workaround a
bug
in compiler. Now it creates only problems. In particular if they are
used wrong it creates a bug of argument passi
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Bean wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
>> Hello. NESTED_ATTR_FUNC was introduced 6 years ago to workaround a bug
>> in compiler. Now it creates only problems. In particular if they are
>> used wrong it creates a bug of a
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:43:10PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
> > Hello. NESTED_ATTR_FUNC was introduced 6 years ago to workaround a bug
> > in compiler. Now it creates only problems. In particular if they are
> > used wrong it create
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
Serbinenko wrote:
> Hello. NESTED_ATTR_FUNC was introduced 6 years ago to workaround a bug
> in compiler. Now it creates only problems. In particular if they are
> used wrong it creates a bug of argument passing. Such bugs are
> difficult to find b
Hello. NESTED_ATTR_FUNC was introduced 6 years ago to workaround a bug
in compiler. Now it creates only problems. In particular if they are
used wrong it creates a bug of argument passing. Such bugs are
difficult to find because it usually results in strange behaviour and
in grub-emu NESTED_FUNC_AT
18 matches
Mail list logo
