On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:31:28PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 12/7/18 4:35 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Would that work well? Only warn for naked functions? It would work > > better for all users that do *not* mess with the stack in their asm ;-) > What I'm questioning is whether or not this is at all useful. ie, if > I've written a something like task switching in C+asms, then I would > fully expect any data related to stack usage in that function to be > totally bogus. Telling me it's bogus in the assembly output really > isn't of value. It's telling me something I should clearly already know. > > And in the common case of an asm that doesn't mess with the stack at > all, the stack usage info is valid and warning me that it may not be is > just a huge annoyance.
Yes, good points. I was thinking that if the warning only triggers for naked functions it wouldn't misfire so often, but that does not take away from that it is pretty useless in the first place. Segher
