On Friday 21 September 2007 23:19:35 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:45:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Kernel doesn't use SSE2, so it doesn't need 16 byte alignment. Also
> > the stack can be already unaligned so letting the compiler align
> > is useless. This may make som
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:34:31AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 21 September 2007 23:13, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:45:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Kernel doesn't use SSE2, so it doesn't need 16 byte alignment. Also
> > > the stack can be already unaligned
On Friday 21 September 2007 23:13, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:45:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Kernel doesn't use SSE2, so it doesn't need 16 byte alignment. Also
> > the stack can be already unaligned so letting the compiler align
> > is useless. This may make some stack
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:45:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Kernel doesn't use SSE2, so it doesn't need 16 byte alignment. Also
> the stack can be already unaligned so letting the compiler align
> is useless. This may make some stack frames smaller.
Shouldn't sources that are compiled into th
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:45:02PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Kernel doesn't use SSE2, so it doesn't need 16 byte alignment. Also
> the stack can be already unaligned so letting the compiler align
> is useless. This may make some stack frames smaller.
> Only works with very recent gcc 4.3
Kernel doesn't use SSE2, so it doesn't need 16 byte alignment. Also
the stack can be already unaligned so letting the compiler align
is useless. This may make some stack frames smaller.
Only works with very recent gcc 4.3
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86_64/Makefile |
6 matches
Mail list logo