Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:10:05 +0300 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC -tip] x86: introduce ENTRY(KPROBE)_X86 assembly helpers to catch unbalanced declaration |
| |
[Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 08:58:46PM +0300] | [Sam Ravnborg - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:51:25PM +0100] | | On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:57:11PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | | > It's usefull to catch unbalanced, missed or mixed declarations of ENTRY and | | > KPROBES. These macros would help a bit (at least I hope so). | | > | | > For example the following code would compile without problems | | > | | > ENTRY_X86(mcount) | | > retq | | > END_X86(mcount) | | > | | > But if you forget and mix the following form | | > | | > ENTRY_X86(mcount) | | > retq | | > END(mcount) | | > | | > ENTRY_X86(ftrace_caller) | | > | | > The assembler will issue the following message: | | > Error: ENTRY_X86/KPROBE_X86 unbalanced,missed,mixed | | > | | > Actually the checking is performed at every _X86 macro | | > so maybe it's good idea to put ENTRY_KPROBE_FINAL_X86 | | > at the end of .S file to be sure you didn't miss anything. | | | | Could we at least try this out in -next before we decide to make | | this X86 only? | | I am aware that binutils can be a bit fragile but -next testing should | | make a good check on this. | | | | Sam | | | | I don't have -next tree on my laptop, neither cross-compile tools but | if someone could test it -- it would be great. But I used gas macros | here -- i doubt other architectures has the same syntax. At least | PDP-11 would beat us with ';' symbol :) | | - Cyrill -
On the other hand, if this feature show 'good' behaviour on x86 we could propagate it on other arch's. If we just turn it on by default -- lots of errors will be.
- Cyrill -
| |