DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=uyX464u5g5zFrWYjUv9u8Mx7Wrrgk+7v+h0dzxHfMFU1xGDKvY9BWGTQM3EwCKbXHGZ/XUVHvb9VBi/Y+2pVVVVNXkU1eyrqa54yI+QlYxOM3cWutr5HJIrvwxyf5RvY3lnTL7NBLmPzKQwQiEOwV8XwlDGN4gnjQ8H1dLBPnyg=
Message-ID: <6dc9ffc80803060914x187049a2hb24ef501baf55601@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:14:00 -0800
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction flag
Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@redhat.com>, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com>,
       "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com>,
       "Chris Lattner" <clattner@apple.com>, "Michael Matz" <matz@suse.de>,
       "Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
       "Joe Buck" <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com>, "Jan Hubicka" <hubicka@ucw.cz>,
       "Aurelien Jarno" <aurelien@aurel32.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <47D024AA.9010300@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <738B72DB-A1D6-43F8-813A-E49688D05771@apple.com>
	 <578FCA7D-D7A6-44F6-9310-4A97C13CDCBE@apple.com>
	 <47CF44E7.3020106@zytor.com> <20080306135139.GA5236@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
	 <b609cb3b0803060737xa0c3c0byb51d51af797eb81f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6dc9ffc80803060743h502fc96bj6117ef87a8555c3a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47D012B4.3020104@zytor.com>
	 <20080306162353.GF24887@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	 <6dc9ffc80803060858i7d4e8b56o99ff8ad301a5cc1a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47D024AA.9010300@zytor.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1387
Lines: 41

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>  >> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:50:12AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>  >>  > H.J. Lu wrote:
>  >>  > >I agree with it. There is no  right or wrong here Let's start from
>  >>  > >scratch and figure out
>  >>  > >what is the best way to handle this, assuming we are defining a new psABI.
>  >>
>  >>  BTW, just tested icc and icc doesn't generate cld either (so it matches the
>  >>  new gcc behavior).
>  >>  char buf1[32], buf2[32];
>  >>  void bar (void);
>  >>  void foo (void)
>  >>  {
>  >>   __builtin_memset (buf1, 0, 32);
>  >>   bar ();
>  >>   __builtin_memset (buf2, 0, 32);
>  >>  }
>  >>
>  >
>  > Icc follows the psABI. If we are saying icc/gcc 4.3 need a fix, we'd
>  > better define
>  > a new psABI first.
>  >
>
>  Not a fix, an (optional) workaround for a system bug.
>

So that is the bug in the Linux kernel. Since fixing kernel is much easier
than providing a workaround in compilers, I think kernel should be fixed
and no need for icc/gcc fix.


H.J.
--
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/