Subject: Re: -freg-struct-return?
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <45DCF1C5.4030006@goop.org>
References: <45DCF1C5.4030006@goop.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Intel International BV
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:04:23 +0100
Message-Id: <1172131463.3531.226.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 962
Lines: 21

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 17:28 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> We have a number of functions which return small structures (such as
> pte_t).  It seems that the kernel is not compiled with
> -freg-struct-return, so all these small structures are being returned
> via the stack, even though they would fit into registers.
> 
> Is there a reason for this?  Would -freg-struct-return be preferred?  It
> would make a good compliment to -mregparm.

Do we know how many gcc bugs this has? (regparm used to have many)
other than that.. sounds like a win...

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
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/