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

[Marc Jones]

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.


Marc


-- 
Marc Jones
Senior Firmware Engineer
(970) 226-9684 Office
mailto:Marc.Jones at amd.com
http://www.amd.com/embeddedprocessors