Re: [coreboot] the eternal pre-post car debate in v3

[Stefan Reinauer]

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 12.09.2008 18:19, ron minnich wrote:
> > W.r.t. Kevin's question: if we wrote stage1 as follows:
> >
> > stage1(){
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >   disable_car();
> >   stage1_after_car();
> > }
> >
> > How would people feel about that?
> >
> > There are still real concerns in my mind about lingering addresses in
> > registers that gcc might leave hanging around. The call nicely removes
> > the worries.
>
> In theory, gcc is free to reload esp from a cached register after
> disable_car. That would cause pretty explosions due to the stack pointer
> being in a now invalid location.

gcc is changing esp to absolute values? Why would it do that?