From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:36743 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753412Ab2HTLSj (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:18:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:18:38 -0700 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 46/74] x86, lto: Disable fancy hweight optimizations for LTO Message-ID: <20120820111838.GC4461@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <1345345030-22211-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1345345030-22211-47-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <5030B1A5020000780008A200@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20120819151516.GS11413@one.firstfloor.org> <50323427020000780009660E@nat28.tlf.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50323427020000780009660E@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andi Kleen , x86@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mmarek@suse.cz, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > That's not the point: The point really is that you could allow the > alternative regardless of LTO, and just penalize the LTO case > by having even the asm clobber the registers that a function call > would not preserve. That's just what a normal call does, right? -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only