lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjecthuge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 05:49:46AM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message----- From: David Miller
> >From: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> Date: Tue, 29
> >Apr 2008 18:31:09 -0700
> >
> >> Some flavors of gcc 4.1.0 and 4.1.1 seems to have trouble
> >understanding
> >> weak function definitions. Calls to function from the same
> >file where it is
> >> defined as weak _may_ get inlined, even when there is a
> >non-weak definition of
> >> the function elsewhere. I tried using attribute 'noinline'
> >which does not
> >> seem to help either.
> >>
> >> One workaround for this is to have weak functions defined in
> >different
> >> file as below. Other possible way is to not use weak
> >functions and go back
> >> to ifdef logic.
> >>
> >> There are few other usages in kernel that seem to depend on
> >weak (and noinline)
> >> working correctly, which can also potentially break and
> >needs such workarounds.
> >> Example -
> >> mach_reboot_fixups() in arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c is one such
> >call which
> >> is getting inlined with a flavor of gcc 4.1.1.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
> >
> >This sounds like a bug. And if gcc does multi-file compilation it
> >can in theory do the same mistake even if you move it to another
> >file.
> >
> >We need something more bulletproof here.
> >
>
> The references here
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2006-05/msg02801.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27781
>
> seem to suggest that the bug is only with weak definition in the same
> file.
> So, having them in a different file should be good enough workaround
> here.
>...

A workaround here is the wrong solution since this isn't the only place
that suffers from this issue.

We currently give a #warning for 4.1.0.
But not for 4.1.1.
(Accordingto the bug >= 4.1.2 is fixed.)

And a #warning is not enough.

The huge problem is that "empty __weak function in the same file and
non-weak arch function" has recently become a common pattern with
several new usages added during this merge window alone.

And the breakages can be very subtle runtime breakages.

I see only the following choices:
- remove __weak and replace all current usages
- move all __weak functions into own files, and ensure that also happens
for future usages
- #error for gcc 4.1.{0,1}
> Thanks,
> Venki

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-01 23:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans