Chris Wright wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I know paravirt-ops had an issue with mcount in the RT tree. I can't
>> remember the exact issues, but it did have something to do with the way
>> parameters were passed in.
>>
>> Chris, do you remember what the issues w
* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Chris Wright wrote:
> > Yes, paravirt ops have a well-specified calling convention (register
> > based). There was a cleanup that Andi did that caused the problem
> > because it removed all the "fastcall" annotations since -mregparm
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> Yes, paravirt ops have a well-specified calling convention (register
> based). There was a cleanup that Andi did that caused the problem
> because it removed all the "fastcall" annotations since -mregparm=3
> is now always on for i386. Since MCOUNT di
* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hmm, I know paravirt-ops had an issue with mcount in the RT tree. I can't
> remember the exact issues, but it did have something to do with the way
> parameters were passed in.
>
> Chris, do you remember what the issues were?
Yes, paravirt ops have a
[Added Chris Wright, Rusty and Virt list because they were involved with
this issue before]
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +# function tracing might turn this off:
> > +config REGPARM
> > + bool
> > + depends on !MCOUNT
> > + de
