2.4 kernel & gcc code generation: a bug?

[Ulrich Windl]

Trying to find out what got broken in kernel 2.4, I was so clueless as 
to compare assembly output for 2.2.18 with 2.4.1. However the assembler 
is quite different, as 2.4 uses the more advanced optimizations of gcc-
2.95.2. Anyway:

1) spinlocks look strange in 2.2(!):

.globl rtc_lock
        .type    rtc_lock,@object
        .size    rtc_lock,0
rtc_lock:
.globl i8253_lock

while in 2.4.1 they look like this:

.globl rtc_lock
        .align 4
        .type    rtc_lock,@object
        .size    rtc_lock,4
rtc_lock:
        .long 0
.globl i8253_lock

2) gcc seems to fail to save registers that are marked "spilled" in 
inline asm's constraints, like rdtsc():

/* nanoseconds since last timer interrupt (using the CPU cycle-counter) */
static inline unsigned long do_exact_nanotime(void)
{
	register unsigned long eax asm("ax");
	register unsigned long edx asm("dx");
	unsigned long result;

	rdtsc(eax, edx);		/* Read the Time Stamp Counter 
*/

	/* .. relative to previous jiffy (32 bits is enough) */
	eax -= last_tsc_low;	/* tsc_low delta */

	/*
	 * Time offset = (tsc_low delta << 4) * exact_nanotime_quotient
	 *             = (tsc_low delta << 4) * (nsecs_per_clock)
	 *             = (tsc_low delta << 4) * (nsecs_per_jiffy /
	 *				    clocks_per_jiffy)
	 *
	 * Using a mull instead of a divl saves up to 31 clock cycles
	 * in the critical path.
	 */
	__asm__("mull %2"
		:"=a" (eax), "=d" (edx)
		:"rm" (exact_nanotime_quotient),
		 "0" (eax << 4));

	/* our adjusted time offset in nanoseconds */
	result = nanodelay_at_last_interrupt + edx;
	return result;
}

.text
        .align 4
.type    do_exact_nanotime,@function
do_exact_nanotime:
#APP
        rdtsc
#NO_APP
subl last_tsc_low,%eax
sall $4,%eax
#APP
        mull exact_nanotime_quotient
#NO_APP
movl nanodelay_at_last_interrupt,%eax
addl %edx,%eax
        ret
.Lfe7:
.size    do_exact_nanotime,.Lfe7-do_exact_nanotime
        .local  last_rtc_update
.comm   last_rtc_update,4,4
.comm   timer_ack,4,4
        .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 2.95.2 19991024 (release)"

#endif

You'll notice that %edx is not pushed at the start of the function. 
Unless the caller saves that, edx will be spilled. Depending on the 
level of optimization this can be bad. Am I wrong?

Regards,
Ulrich
P.S: Not subscribed here, so plese CC: if possible.