From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1It2mh-0002vP-VY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:07:08 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1It2me-0002kh-1l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:07:07 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1It2md-0002kP-PA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:07:03 -0500 Received: from emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.116]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1It2mc-0003bu-O8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:07:03 -0500 Received: from saunalahti-vams (vs3-11.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.95]) by emh06-2.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id CD291C8478 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:06:59 +0200 (EET) Received: from marumake.local (a88-112-236-112.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.236.112]) by emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4E9158B2D for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:06:58 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <473DB212.9010300@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:06:58 +0200 From: Heikki Lindholm MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: fix for random Qemu crashes References: <1195168693.2415.19.camel@rapid> In-Reply-To: <1195168693.2415.19.camel@rapid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org J. Mayer kirjoitti: > Some may have experienced of having some Qemu builds crashing, > apparently at random places, but in a reproducable way. > I found one reason for this crashes: it appears that with the growth of > the op.c file, there may be cases where we could reach the inlining > limits of gcc. In such a case, gcc would not inline some declared > "inline" function but would emit a call and provide a separate function. > Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in op.o context as it will > slowdown the emulation and because the call is likely to break the > specific compilation rules (ie reserved registers) used while compiling > op.o Does -winline give a warning when this happens? -- Heikki Lindholm