This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Added information about inline assembler in stack calculations (.su files)
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Niklas DAHLQUIST <niklas dot dahlquist at st dot com>, Torbjorn SVENSSON <torbjorn dot svensson at st dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Joey dot Ye at arm dot com" <Joey dot Ye at arm dot com>, Samuel HULTGREN <samuel dot hultgren at st dot com>, Christophe LYON <christophe dot lyon at st dot com>, Christophe MONAT <christophe dot monat at st dot com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 02:57:56 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added information about inline assembler in stack calculations (.su files)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20181207233525.GF3803@gate.crashing.org> <email@example.com>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:31:28PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/7/18 4:35 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Would that work well? Only warn for naked functions? It would work
> > better for all users that do *not* mess with the stack in their asm ;-)
> What I'm questioning is whether or not this is at all useful. ie, if
> I've written a something like task switching in C+asms, then I would
> fully expect any data related to stack usage in that function to be
> totally bogus. Telling me it's bogus in the assembly output really
> isn't of value. It's telling me something I should clearly already know.
> And in the common case of an asm that doesn't mess with the stack at
> all, the stack usage info is valid and warning me that it may not be is
> just a huge annoyance.
Yes, good points. I was thinking that if the warning only triggers for
naked functions it wouldn't misfire so often, but that does not take away
from that it is pretty useless in the first place.