Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:15:53 +0800 | From | Li Zefan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ftrace: don't increment @pos in g_start() |
| |
Wang Liming wrote: > Li Zefan wrote: >> Li Zefan wrote: >>> Liming Wang wrote: >>>> how about this one? >>>> >>> Yeah, this should work, and cleaner than my version. >>> >> >> Hmmm, the patch is cleaner in diffstat but the resulted code >> isn't.. >> >> After yours: >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 14879 5480 4240 24599 6017 kernel/trace/ftrace.o >> >> After mine: >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 14873 5480 4240 24593 6011 kernel/trace/ftrace.o > Hmmm, if you prefer to smaller target size, I don't care. > But in my system, I got the same size: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 14330 5019 104 19453 4bfd kernel/trace/ftrace.o > > I use objdump to compute the actual size of all modified functions: > > After mine: > func size > g_start 0x50 > g_next 0x70 > > After yours: > func size > __g_next 0x70 > g_next 0x20 > g_start 0x30 > > I used Steve git tree and commit e482f8395f215e0ad6557b2722cd9b9b308035c4. > My gcc version is : > gcc version 4.2.4 > > I don't know where the difference. >
Maybe because of different gcc versions:
# gcc --version gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)
The point is, I don't see how the patch you posted is better than mine. And it's fine for me to pick up yours if it's indeed better.
| |