Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1595576

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

From Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)
Date 2017-03-09 00:20 +0100
Message-ID <tiT2a-4ZD-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <tisbD-31Z-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tisbD-31Z-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tislj-35L-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tiNSN-1nX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tiOYy-25e-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi!

> > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug
> >   where the stack gets aligned before the mcount call.  This issue
> >   should be mostly obsolete as most modern compilers now have -mfentry.
> >   We could make it dependent on CC_USING_FENTRY.
> 
> Yeah. At some point we might even upgrade the compiler requirements to
> no longer accept the mcount model.
> 
> I think the fentry model is gcc-4.6.0 and up. Currently I guess we
> support gcc-3.2+, which is fairly ridiculous considering that 4.6.0 is
> from March, 2011. So it's over five years ago already.
> 
> gcc-3.2.0 is from 2002, I think. At some point you just have to say
> "caring about a 15 year old compiler is ridiculous"
> 
> The main reason we have fairly aggressively supported old compilers
> tends to be some odder architectures that don't have good support, so
> people use various random "this works for me" versions.
> 
> We could easily make the gcc version checks much more strict on x86,
> I suspect.

Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile
stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to
gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger advantages than CPU upgrade...

								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-03 01:20 +0100
  Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-03-06 17:50 +0100
    Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-07 19:40 +0100
      Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-07 19:40 +0100
      Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-07 19:50 +0100
        Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-08 18:50 +0100
          Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-08 20:00 +0100
            Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2017-03-08 20:10 +0100
            Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-08 22:40 +0100
              Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-03-09 15:20 +0100
                Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-09 19:40 +0100
            Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-03-09 00:20 +0100
              Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2017-03-09 10:40 +0100
                Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-03-09 12:00 +0100
                Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2017-03-09 13:20 +0100
                Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer  .. has bad value (null)) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-03-10 14:20 +0100
                Re: Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame  pointer .. has bad value (null)) Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2017-03-10 14:30 +0100
                Re: Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame  pointer .. has bad value (null)) Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2017-03-10 15:20 +0100
              Old compiler versions (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer ..  has bad value (null)) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-03-09 12:00 +0100
                Re: Old compiler versions (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer  .. has bad value (null)) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-09 19:10 +0100
              Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-09 16:40 +0100
                Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-03-09 22:20 +0100
    Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-03-07 19:40 +0100
      Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2017-03-07 20:00 +0100
      Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-07 20:50 +0100

csiph-web