Re: [RFC,v2] x86_64: save_args out of line

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Not really.  At the moment we have two parallel assembly languages 
> > which say different things about the same instructions.  In practice, 
> > almost nobody understands the cfi parts, so they just get ignored 
> > while the x86 instructions change around them, leaving them either 
> > stale or missing.
> >
> > If we had a sensible macro layer which emits both instructions and 
> > cfi annotations, it at least means that people who write plain x86 
> > instructions will simply get no annotations, and people who bother to 
> > learn the (clearly and fully documented) macros will get the best of 
> > both.
>
> I think that it would be nice to have macros for the most commonly 
> annotatable instructions, e.g. push, and stack pointer movement.  Just 
> compactifying the code should improve readability, if perhaps not 
> writability.

Yes.  Something that obviously relates to both the instruction and the 
semantic intent of the annotation: add_sp, sub_sp, save_reg, etc.  And 
at least that will eliminate the differently-signed(!) constant for 
stack movement.

   J
>     -hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/