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

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

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.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel