Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions

2009-11-19 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:17:16PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:05 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > Well, other archs use a register to store the return address. But it > > would also be easy to do (pseudo arch assembly): > > > > : > > mov lr, (%sp) >

Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions

2009-11-19 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:05:41PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 20:46 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:28:06PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > : > > > call __fentry__ > > >

Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions

2009-11-19 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:54:56PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote: > 2009/11/19 Frederic Weisbecker : > > I would really like this. So that we can forget about other possible > > further suprises due to sophisticated function prologues beeing before > > the mcount call. > > >

Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions

2009-11-19 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:28:06PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 11:10 -0800, David Daney wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > For the MIPS port of GCC and Linux I recently added the > > -mmcount-ra-address switch. It causes the location of the return > > address (on th

Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions

2009-11-19 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:02:32AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:44 +, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > We're aligning the stack properly, as per the ABI requirements. Can't > > you just fix the tracer? > > And how do we do that? The hooks that a