From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752197AbaAKCQA (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:16:00 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0232.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.232]:49665 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751263AbaAKCP7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:15:59 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:968:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2693:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3350:3622:3865:3866:3871:3874:4041:4321:5007:6119:7652:7903:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12533:12740:13069:13160:13229:13311:13357,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: spade82_50d72b72c7750 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1602 Message-ID: <1389406553.2537.52.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/vsprintf: add %pT format specifier From: Joe Perches To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, pavel@ucw.cz, keescook@chromium.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, jkosina@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:15:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: <201401111059.HCH39012.MFtVHFOFQOLOJS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <201401092151.FIB00084.SJFOLVOMQHtFOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20140110155952.b376106ab7b76403af99111b@linux-foundation.org> <201401111059.HCH39012.MFtVHFOFQOLOJS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 10:59 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I just added noinline_for_stack as with other functions does. > But indeed, stack used by name[] is only 16 bytes but stack used by function > arguments are larger than 16 bytes. We should remove noinline_for_stack ? My recollection is that certain gcc versions don't do well with multiple inline functions that have stack variables. Instead of collapsing the variables, gcc will accumulate the stack depth of all the inlines args instead of reusing the stack.