On November 29, 2018 1:25:02 PM GMT+01:00, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>This will only be fixed from GCC 9 on, if the compiler adopts it. The
>kernel wants to support ancient GCC, so it will need to have a
>workaround
>for older GCC versions anyway.
What about backporting it, like Richard says?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:46:34PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> But, I'd like to ask if x86 people want to keep this macros.s approach.
> Revert 77b0bf55bc675 right now
> assuming the compiler will eventually solve the issue?
Yap, considering how elegant the compiler solution is and how much
pr
On 10/7/18 1:06 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> at 9:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On October 7, 2018 6:09:30 PM GMT+02:00, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> at 2:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>
Hi people,
this is an attempt to see whether gcc's inline asm heuristic when
estimating inline
On October 7, 2018 6:09:30 PM GMT+02:00, Nadav Amit wrote:
>at 2:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>> Hi people,
>>
>> this is an attempt to see whether gcc's inline asm heuristic when
>> estimating inline asm statements' cost for better inlining can be
>> improved.
>>
>> AFAIU, the problematic a
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 08:22:28AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> GCC already estimates the *size* of inline asm, and this is required
> *for correctness*.
I didn't say it didn't - but the heuristic could use improving.
> So I guess the real issue is that the inline asm size estimate for x86
