On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:23:49PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 05:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >This is a bit of a mess and I think the code
> >needs some TLC before we start hacking it up further.
> >
> >Let's start with clean up of dead code:
> >
> > /* We will need to ensure tha
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:23:49PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 05:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >This is a bit of a mess and I think the code
> >needs some TLC before we start hacking it up further.
> >
> >Let's start with clean up of dead code:
> >
> > /* We will need to ensure tha
> I pondered that as a direction, but was scared off by the overall
> fragility of this code when I looked back through the old BZs. I
> figured cleanup preserving existing behavior was the first step.
Setting aside the flag_split_stack stuff, the must_align logic is clear enough
and quite local
On 05/20/2016 03:44 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
So here's that cleanup. The diffs are larger than one might expect
because of the reindentation that needs to happen. So I've included a
-b diff variant which shows how little actually changed here.
I'm wondering if it isn't counter-productive. Th
> So here's that cleanup. The diffs are larger than one might expect
> because of the reindentation that needs to happen. So I've included a
> -b diff variant which shows how little actually changed here.
I'm wondering if it isn't counter-productive. The ??? comment is explicit
about where the
On 05/19/2016 05:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
[ ... ]
This is a bit of a mess and I think the code
needs some TLC before we start hacking it up further.
Let's start with clean up of dead code:
/* We will need to ensure that the address we return is aligned to
REQUIRED_ALIGN. If STACK_DYNAMIC_O
