Am Freitag, den 28.02.2014, 12:19 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > How many internal function calls are there? It seems we should try to avoid
> > those as much as possible by suitable inlining.
>
> There are no non-static calls at all,
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> How many internal function calls are there? It seems we should try to avoid
> those as much as possible by suitable inlining.
There are no non-static calls at all, except for __x86.get_pc_thunk.
I imagine that gcc is smart enough to improv
How many internal function calls are there? It seems we should try to avoid
those as much as possible by suitable inlining.
On February 27, 2014 11:28:25 PM PST, Stefani Seibold
wrote:
>Am Donnerstag, den 27.02.2014, 16:18 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
>> There's no reason for the vDSO to use
Am Donnerstag, den 27.02.2014, 16:18 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> There's no reason for the vDSO to use a special function call ABI. Use
> the platform defaults.
>
The only reason was performance. What is good for the kernel should be
also good for the VDSO. Now all functions inside the VDSO
There's no reason for the vDSO to use a special function call ABI. Use
the platform defaults.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
---
arch/x86/vdso/Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/Makefile b/arch/x86/vdso/Makefile
index 92daaa6..80584f5 1006
5 matches
Mail list logo