On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:27:02AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > So, where there's a compelling reason to inline these things, we can use > the existing techniques if we're alert to the risks. But in cases where > there isn't a compelling reason, aren't we just inviting fragility > unnecessarily? The practical experience from the kernel suggests that there isn't a problem - that's not to say that future versions of gcc won't become a problem, and that the compiler guys may refuse to fix it. I think it's a feature that we should be pressing gcc guys for - it's fairly fundamental to any programming which requires interfaces that require certain args in certain registers, or receive results in certain registers. The options over this are basically: 1. refusing to upgrade to any version of gcc which does not allow registers-in-asm 2. doing the store-to-memory reload-in-asm thing 3. hand-coding veneers for every call to marshall the registers Each of those has its down sides, but I suspect with (1), it may be possible to have enough people applying pressure to the compiler guys that they finally see sense on this matter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
