Re: [tip: x86/asm] x86/asm: Make ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT conditional on frame pointers
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip: x86/asm] x86/asm: Make ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT conditional on frame pointers
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 15:29:00 -0800
- Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tip-bot2 for Josh Poimboeuf <tip-bot2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@xxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20250307232157.comm4lycebr7zmre@jpoimboe>
- References: <174108458405.14745.4864877018394987266.tip-bot2@tip-bot2> <90B1074B-E7D4-4CE0-8A82-ADEB7BAED7AD@zytor.com> <Z8t7ubUE5P7woAr5@gmail.com> <20250307232157.comm4lycebr7zmre@jpoimboe>
- User-agent: K-9 Mail for Android
On March 7, 2025 3:21:57 PM PST, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 12:05:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > > #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
>> >
>> > So we are going to be using this version despite the gcc maintainers
>> > telling us it is not supported?
>>
>> No, neither patches are in the x86 tree at the moment.
>
>FWIW, the existing ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT is also not supported, so this
>patch wouldn't have changed anything in that respect.
>
>Regardless I plan to post a new patch set soon with a bunch of cleanups.
>
>It will keep the existing ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT in place for GCC, and will
>use the new __builtin_frame_address(0) input constraint for Clang only.
>
>There will be a new asm_call() interface to hide the mess.
>
Alternatively, you can co-opt the gcc BR I already filed on this and argue there that there are new reasons to support the alternate construct.
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]