Re: [uml-devel] User Mode Linux still doesn't build in 2.6.23-final.

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:47:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >   
> > >>>> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> > >>>>         
> > >>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> > >>>       
> > >> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code.  [...]
> > >>     
> > >
> > > nice word-bending there. I'm asking for pre-existing annotations to 
> > > survive. It hurts you _nothing_ and it was a world of pain for us to 
> > > recover those lost annotations. Anyway, if Jeremy does not object to the 
> > > patch
> > 
> > I don't have any objections to the idea of the patch, but I'm still 
> > concerned about the practical aspects of it.  Maintaining these kinds 
> > of annotations is hard/fragile/etc when the compiler doesn't warn when 
> > you get it wrong, and only a very specific use-case will reveal the 
> > problem (and do so in a fairly obscure way).
> 
> it wont be any different from the situation before - we had no such 
> warnings there either. Anyway, this shouldnt really bother you as at the 
> moment it's only used for -rt. The issue is to keep something we had 
> before (but which was stupidly/carelessly removed). If it breaks we'll 
> fix it up.
>...

Until recently (read: before 2.6.20) fastcall had a semantics on i386
that resulted in compile errors if you got it wrong.

> 	Ingo

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed