> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > +/* set_stackptr without changing mode */
> > +void
> > +static __inline set_current_stackptr(u_int address)
> > +{
> > +	__asm __volatile("mov r13, %0" : /* no outputs */
> > +	    : "r" (address)
> > +	    : "r13" );
> > +}
> > +
> > 
> > It wouldn't surprise me if this seriously upsets the compiler.  Even
> > making this non-inline may not work.
> 
> Why do you say that. It did not complain when I compiled it iirc. Of
> course if you do anything that touches the old stack after that you
> are sunk, but that's your lookout fooling around with this stuff
> anyway.

Because of the way the stack is laid out.

Because of the way function return is done

Because of the way functions needing more than four words of arguments 
pass items on a pre-allocated stack chunk

Because the compiler might not see the stack update and might move 
operations dependent on it across the stack adjustment (ok, this one 
shouldn't happen, but the stack and the frame aren't as conceptually tied 
together in the compiler as one might hope).

Because variables that don't get allocated to registers get put on the 
stack.

I could go on...

Just because the compiler doesn't complain, doesn't mean that the code is 
right.

R.