On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, Paul Burton wrote:
> Agreed we ought to use .set reorder (or rather, not use .set noreorder)
> wherever possible but FYI one thing I've only noticed recently is that we
> don't actually get any reordering anyway, presumably because we don't provide
> any -O flags when buildi
Hi Maciej,
> Overall I think all code should be using the (default)
> `.set reorder' mode, perhaps forced explicitly in case these macros are
> pasted into `.set noreorder' code, to make it easier to avoid subtle data
> dependency bugs, and also to make R6 porting easier. Except maybe for the
>
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> Ah yes, I missed the .set reorder above the EVA ifdef and just included the
> .set reorder as the similar snippet here:
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h#L149
That's a global `.set reorder' for the whole of SAVE_S
Hi Maciej,
On 05/12/16 16:20, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Matt Redfearn wrote:
diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h
b/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h
index eebf39549606..5782fa3d63be 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/st
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h
> b/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h
> index eebf39549606..5782fa3d63be 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h
> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h
> @@ -216,12 +216,22 @@
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
