> i'm wondering, have you seen this happen in practice? We use
quoted text > sys_set_thread_area() for every new task started up. I guess we havent
> seen problems in the field yet because this early during startup tasks
> do not normally receive signals? (or if they do they are fatal and no
> user signal context is used.)
Tomasz saw it. I don't know what compiler or exact options to it he used.
quoted text > btw., this whole thing of us having to notice such tail-optimization
> incidents is totally fragile and unreliable. Shouldnt there be a "dont
> tail-optimize me" attribute which we could stick into asmlinkage?
I agree. It's come up before. I'll talk to compiler folks about it again.
quoted text > Perhaps sparse could detect asmlinkage functions that do not do
> prevent_tail_call()s?
That sounds like a good idea to me.
Thanks,
Roland
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] x86 tls prevent_tail_call , Roland McGrath , (Wed Feb 27, 12:38 am)