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 thi
On 12/7/18 4:35 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 07:51:35AM +, Niklas DAHLQUIST wrote:
>> On 12/1/18 1:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> One could argue that allocating stack space inside an ASM is a really
>>> bad idea. Consider things like dwarf debugging and unwind
Hi!
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 07:51:35AM +, Niklas DAHLQUIST wrote:
> On 12/1/18 1:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > One could argue that allocating stack space inside an ASM is a really
> > bad idea. Consider things like dwarf debugging and unwind tables. If
> > you're allocating stack inside an ASM
Hi Torbjorn,
Just some formatting nitpicking:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:45:59PM +, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> index 38e27a50a1e..e61ddc3260b 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> @@ -6456,7 +6456,7 @@ Warn if
On 12/1/18 1:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/26/18 7:02 AM, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is a small patch that, in case of inline assembler code,
>> indicates that the function stack usage is uncertain due to inline
>> assembler.
>>
>> The test suite are using "nop" as an assembler
On 11/26/18 7:02 AM, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a small patch that, in case of inline assembler code,
> indicates that the function stack usage is uncertain due to inline
> assembler.
>
> The test suite are using "nop" as an assembler instruction on all
> targets, is this a
Hi!
Thanks for the feedback.
Attached is an updated patch where I switched to the NOP define instead.
I'm not sure if stack-usage-naked.c should be moved to gcc.dg-tree, or
if it should skip using the nop.h file (it feels wrong to do #include
"../../gcc.dg/nop.h" from within gcc.taget-tree).
To
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:02:49PM +, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> Attached is a small patch that, in case of inline assembler code,
> indicates that the function stack usage is uncertain due to inline
> assembler.
>
> The test suite are using "nop" as an assembler instruction on all
> t
Hi,
Attached is a small patch that, in case of inline assembler code,
indicates that the function stack usage is uncertain due to inline
assembler.
The test suite are using "nop" as an assembler instruction on all
targets, is this acceptable or is there a better way to test this?
Patch has be
