From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: Torbjorn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svensson@st.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: "Joey.Ye@arm.com" <Joey.Ye@arm.com>,
Niklas DAHLQUIST <niklas.dahlquist@st.com>,
Samuel HULTGREN <samuel.hultgren@st.com>,
Christophe LYON <christophe.lyon@st.com>,
Christophe MONAT <christophe.monat@st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added information about inline assembler in stack calculations (.su files)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 00:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54470cff-6d6c-f3b4-7958-420d1e512200@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7f229423-5edb-88e8-a5c2-7c9660339255@st.com>
On 11/26/18 7:02 AM, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a small patch that, in case of inline assembler code,
> indicates that the function stack usage is uncertain due to inline
> assembler.
>
> The test suite are using "nop" as an assembler instruction on all
> targets, is this acceptable or is there a better way to test this?
>
> Patch has been tested on gcc-arm-none-eabi-7-2018-q2-update for both
> arm-none-eabi and x86_64-linux-gnu and SVN head (r266454) for
> x86_64-linux-gnu.
One could argue that allocating stack space inside an ASM is a really
bad idea. Consider things like dwarf debugging and unwind tables. If
you're allocating stack inside an ASM that stuff is going to be totally
wrong.
So I think my question before moving forward with something like this is
whether or not it makes sense at all to bother dumping data for a
scenario that we'd probably suggest developers avoid to begin with.
jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-01 0:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-26 14:03 Torbjorn SVENSSON
2018-11-27 19:03 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-11-27 19:46 ` Torbjorn SVENSSON
2018-12-07 23:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-12-01 0:16 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2018-12-07 7:51 ` Niklas DAHLQUIST
2018-12-08 12:05 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-12-14 0:31 ` Jeff Law
2018-12-14 8:58 ` Segher Boessenkool
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54470cff-6d6c-f3b4-7958-420d1e512200@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=Joey.Ye@arm.com \
--cc=christophe.lyon@st.com \
--cc=christophe.monat@st.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=niklas.dahlquist@st.com \
--cc=samuel.hultgren@st.com \
--cc=torbjorn.svensson@st.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).