On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:55:02PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> I think we're talking past each other. What I'd like credit for is
> coming up with the idea of omitting the xor %eax,%eax in the first place
> (the original mail was sent to x...@kernel.org [cc'ed to a few x86
> maintainers], but
On Thu, Apr 23 2015, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:00:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> > or you want attribution or ...?
>>
>> That would be nice.
>
> I fail to see for what - I see H.J. Lu's patch from Dec. 2014 and you
> repeating the same patch months later.
I
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:00:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> > or you want attribution or ...?
>>
>> That would be nice.
>
> I fail to see for what - I see H.J. Lu's patch from Dec. 2014 and you
> repeating the same patch months
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:00:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > or you want attribution or ...?
>
> That would be nice.
I fail to see for what - I see H.J. Lu's patch from Dec. 2014 and you
repeating the same patch months later.
Don't get me wrong - I'd gladly add your attribution too but
On Mon, Apr 20 2015, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:24:44PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Hadn't seen that, so I wrongly assumed everybody had forgotten about
>> it. I don't care about the S-o-b on the trivial Makefile patch, but my
>> request for a feature-suggested-by
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:00:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
or you want attribution or ...?
That would be nice.
I fail to see for what - I see H.J. Lu's patch from Dec. 2014 and you
repeating the same patch months
On Thu, Apr 23 2015, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:00:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
or you want attribution or ...?
That would be nice.
I fail to see for what - I see H.J. Lu's patch from Dec. 2014 and you
repeating the same patch months later.
I
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:55:02PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. What I'd like credit for is
coming up with the idea of omitting the xor %eax,%eax in the first place
(the original mail was sent to x...@kernel.org [cc'ed to a few x86
maintainers], but
On Mon, Apr 20 2015, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:24:44PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Hadn't seen that, so I wrongly assumed everybody had forgotten about
it. I don't care about the S-o-b on the trivial Makefile patch, but my
request for a
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:00:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
or you want attribution or ...?
That would be nice.
I fail to see for what - I see H.J. Lu's patch from Dec. 2014 and you
repeating the same patch months later.
Don't get me wrong - I'd gladly add your attribution too but it
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:24:44PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Hadn't seen that, so I wrongly assumed everybody had forgotten about
> it. I don't care about the S-o-b on the trivial Makefile patch, but my
> request for a feature-suggested-by or similar still stands.
I don't understand what
On Mon, Apr 20 2015, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:28:16PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>
>> Nothing seems to have happened on the kernel side since H.J. Lu
>> implemented this in December. Since gcc 5 is officially released
>
> I see the same patch from him from Apr.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:28:16PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> gcc 5 supports the option -mskip-rax-setup to avoid emitting the
> two-byte instruction xor %eax,%eax before a vararg function
> call. Clearing %eax is redundant in the kernel, since no callee
> expects any floating point
gcc 5 supports the option -mskip-rax-setup to avoid emitting the
two-byte instruction xor %eax,%eax before a vararg function
call. Clearing %eax is redundant in the kernel, since no callee
expects any floating point arguments, and hence never use the incoming
value of %eax for anything.
For a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:24:44PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Hadn't seen that, so I wrongly assumed everybody had forgotten about
it. I don't care about the S-o-b on the trivial Makefile patch, but my
request for a feature-suggested-by or similar still stands.
I don't understand what that
On Mon, Apr 20 2015, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:28:16PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Nothing seems to have happened on the kernel side since H.J. Lu
implemented this in December. Since gcc 5 is officially released
I see the same patch from him from
gcc 5 supports the option -mskip-rax-setup to avoid emitting the
two-byte instruction xor %eax,%eax before a vararg function
call. Clearing %eax is redundant in the kernel, since no callee
expects any floating point arguments, and hence never use the incoming
value of %eax for anything.
For a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:28:16PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
gcc 5 supports the option -mskip-rax-setup to avoid emitting the
two-byte instruction xor %eax,%eax before a vararg function
call. Clearing %eax is redundant in the kernel, since no callee
expects any floating point arguments,
18 matches
Mail list logo
