lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.7 for 2.6.17 (with type checking!)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@goop.org) wrote:
>
>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>>> #define MARK_SYM(name) \
>>> do { \
>>> __label__ here; \
>>> volatile static void *__mark_kprobe_##name \
>>> asm (MARK_CALL_PREFIX#name) \
>>> __attribute__((unused)) = &&here; \
>>> here: \
>>> do { } while(0); \
>>> } while(0)
>>>
>>> Which fixes the problem. Some tests showed me that the compiler does not
>>> unroll
>>> an otherwise unrolled loop when this specific macro is called. (test done
>>> with
>>> -funroll-all-loops).
>>>
>> Eh? I thought you wanted to avoid changing the generated code?
>> Inhibiting loop unrolling could be a pretty large change...
>>
>>
>
> Yes, if possible. But letting gcc duplicate those symbols brings many questions,
> such as : how can we name each of them differently ? Is there any way to
> automatically increment an "identifier" counter in assembly ?

Use a section instead:

struct marker {
const char *name;
const void *location;
};

#define MARKER_SYM(name)
do {
__label__ here;
here: asm volatile(".section \".markers\"; .long %0, %1; .previous" : : "m" (#name), "m" (*&&here));\
} while(0);

Not a linker symbol, but it does let you find all the places containing
a particular mark.

J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-22 06:03    [W:0.166 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site