From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31679 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2009 16:13:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 31644 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2009 16:13:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from terminus.zytor.com (HELO terminus.zytor.com) (198.137.202.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:11:44 +0000 Received: from tazenda.hos.anvin.org (c-98-210-181-100.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.181.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAJGBUna013572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:11:30 -0800 Message-ID: <4B056E32.3010809@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:13:00 -0000 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rostedt@goodmis.org CC: Andrew Haley , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Andrew Morton , Heiko Carstens , feng.tang@intel.com, Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , jakub@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions References: <20091119072040.GA23579@elte.hu> <4B0567E0.5080803@redhat.com> <1258646552.22249.493.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <1258646552.22249.493.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00498.txt.bz2 On 11/19/2009 08:02 AM, 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? > Furthermore, it is nonsense -- ABI stack alignment on *32 bits* is 4 bytes, not 16. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.