On 26 October 2014 10:25, Thomas Leonard <tal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 October 2014 09:55, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org> > wrote: >> Thomas Leonard, le Sun 26 Oct 2014 09:46:09 +0000, a écrit : >>> Could you say a bit more about the linker problems you had? >> >> Really digging in the archives this time :) >> >> ia64-specific: >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-ia64-devel/2008-03/msg00126.html >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-ia64-devel/2008-12/msg00070.html >> x86_64-specific (missing red zone support) >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-ia64-devel/2008-02/msg00251.html >> >> So I guess it could be OK on arm, but you have to make sure that Mini-OS >> implements the whole ABI that gcc will use. Testing is not enough, I got >> hit by the red zone for instance. > > On ARM, we have a separate stack for the IRQ handler, so the red zone > at least shouldn't be a problem.
Incidentally, why doesn't Mini-OS/x86 use a red zone? I assume there's a worthwhile performance benefit to it, and it would prevent subtle bugs when software is accidentally compiled for the normal ABI. -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
