[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC
From: |
Felix Zielcke |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:49:49 +0200 |
Am Donnerstag, den 03.09.2009, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:20:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__
> > ((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forget to add -Os so it still uses stack
> > to store value). And the bug is still there ! Try this test program:
>
> Thanks Bean. I have opened an entry in GCC bugzilla, and submitted your
> test program in it:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41246
>
> Hopefully they'll fix it in later versions, and hopefully people will
> upgrade soon. In the meantime, we're stuck with it.
>
Is there any reason why we fallback to regparm 1 and not to regparm 2?
According to the output of the testcase in the above bug report 2 seems
to work too?
--
Felix Zielcke
Proud Debian Maintainer
- Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, (continued)
- Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, David Miller, 2009/09/01
- Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/09/03
- Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, David Miller, 2009/09/03
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Fwd: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/09/06
- Re: Fwd: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, Robert Millan, 2009/09/08
Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, Bean, 2009/09/02
Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, Robert Millan, 2009/09/03
Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC,
Felix Zielcke <=
Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/09/03
Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC, Bean, 2009/09/03