From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11099 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2009 16:20:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 11089 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2009 16:20:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.147) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:19:41 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 13so626699eye.46 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.23.88 with SMTP id q24mr1678240ebb.13.1258647576582; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nowhere (ADijon-552-1-120-36.w92-148.abo.wanadoo.fr [92.148.63.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm173558eyz.7.2009.11.19.08.19.34 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:19:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by nowhere (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) fweisbec@gmail.com; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:19:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:20:00 -0000 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Andrew Haley , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Andrew Morton , Heiko Carstens , feng.tang@intel.com, Peter Zijlstra , jakub@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions Message-ID: <20091119161934.GD4967@nowhere> References: <20091119072040.GA23579@elte.hu> <4B0567E0.5080803@redhat.com> <1258646552.22249.493.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1258646552.22249.493.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00501.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:02:32AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:44 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > We're aligning the stack properly, as per the ABI requirements. Can't > > you just fix the tracer? > > And how do we do that? The hooks that are in place have no idea of what > happened before they were called? > > -- Steve Yep, this is really something we can't fix from the tracer....