On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 01:37:01PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> That is a lot more typing then
> asm("");
That's why a macro with a hopefully more descriptive name would be
telling more than a mere asm("").
> but more seriously, you probably should explain why you do not want a
> tail call *anyway*, and in such a comment you can say that is what the
> asm is for.
Yes, the final version will have a comment and the whole spiel. This
diff is just me polling the maintainers: "do you want this for your arch
too?" Well, the PPC maintainers only, actually.
The other call in init/main.c would be for everybody.
> I don't see anything that prevents the tailcall in current code either,
> fwiw.
Right, and I don't see a reason why gcc-10 would do that optimization on
x86 only but I better ask first.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
