[coreboot] [RFC] v3: Stack switching abstraction for C7 and later Intel processors

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Wed Oct 15 00:31:28 CEST 2008

On 14.10.2008 23:35, Marc Jones wrote:
> ron minnich wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
>>> Calling anything after disable_car() returns can only be done reliably
>>> if the stack has not moved. You see, gcc is free to reorder stuff as it
>>> sees fit and it could insert almost anything between disable_car() and
>>> the call to stage1.
>> you're right too.
>> In any event, I have never been comfortable with returning from
>> disable_car(), so away we go.
> OK, comment below the call that it should never return and/or put a
> die() there as well to catch it if it did come back.

Will do so.



More information about the coreboot mailing list