From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13188 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2009 18:45:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 13162 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2009 18:45:32 -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 smtp1.linux-foundation.org (HELO smtp1.linux-foundation.org) (140.211.169.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:44:28 +0000 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id nAJIhfwg030200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:43:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id nAJIhflo031690; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:43:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:45:00 -0000 From: Linus Torvalds To: Andrew Haley cc: Richard Guenther , rostedt@goodmis.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , 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 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20091119072040.GA23579@elte.hu> <1258653562.22249.682.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <84fc9c000911191003t244eb864o3d5b355ab5485f@mail.gmail.com> <4B058CCD.8050605@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ 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/msg00519.txt.bz2 On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Oh Gods, are we back to gcc people saying "sure, we do stupid things, but > it's allowed, so we don't consider it a bug because it doesn't matter that > real people care about real life, we only care about some paper, and real > life doesn't matter, if it's 'undefined' we can make our idiotic choices > regardless of what people need, and regardless of whether it actually > generates better code or not". Put another way: the stack alignment itself may not be a bug, but gcc generating God-awful code for the mcount handling that results in problems in real life sure as hell is *stupid* enough to be called a bug. I bet other people than just the kernel use the mcount hook for subtler things than just doing profiles. And even if they don't, the quoted code generation is just crazy _crap_. Linus