From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MjEZY-0005tQ-Lq for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:50:04 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MjEZW-0005sT-Oy for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:50:02 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MjEZS-0005of-6Y for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:50:02 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60078 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MjEZR-0005oR-So for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:49:57 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:60473) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MjEZQ-00062o-7L for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:49:57 -0400 Received: from [85.180.60.30] (e180060030.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.180.60.30]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKt72-1MjEZK3EU9-000D6z; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:49:51 +0200 From: Felix Zielcke To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <20090903153623.GA18824@thorin> References: <20090903153623.GA18824@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:49:49 +0200 Message-Id: <1251992989.2870.8.camel@fz.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.27.91 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/MwS01zbR3CHlXNssrBXfiCOdHobl/i163UCQ U8M3Dj+gt8+T9frWgtFDm6pP/UsNL9E0rdUn52D8nIn2VRjuMi Oc/+/ckg2WMJHMTO6zzBa4PmG9JkILl X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [RFC] Eliminate NESTED_ATTR_FUNC X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:50:03 -0000 Am Donnerstag, den 03.09.2009, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:20:19PM +0800, Bean wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Oh, I was wrong previously, gcc does respect __attribute__ > > ((__regparm__ (3))) flag (I forget to add -Os so it still uses stack > > to store value). And the bug is still there ! Try this test program: > > Thanks Bean. I have opened an entry in GCC bugzilla, and submitted your > test program in it: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41246 > > Hopefully they'll fix it in later versions, and hopefully people will > upgrade soon. In the meantime, we're stuck with it. > Is there any reason why we fallback to regparm 1 and not to regparm 2? According to the output of the testcase in the above bug report 2 seems to work too? -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer