[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Unnecessary Relocation Hiding?
Christoph Lameter writes:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Dong Feng wrote:
> > I have a question. Why shall we need a RELOC_HIDE() macro in the
> > definition of per_cpu()? Maybe the question is actually why we need
> > macro RELOC_HIDE() at all. I changed the following line in
> > include/asm-generic/percpu.h, from
> Guess it was copied from IA64 but the semantics were not preserved.
> I think it should either be changed the way you suggest or the
> implementation needs to be fixed to actually do a linker relocation.

No, RELOC_HIDE came from ppc originally. The reason for it is that
gcc assumes that if you add something on to the address of a symbol,
the resulting address is still inside the bounds of the symbol, and do
optimizations based on that. The RELOC_HIDE macro is designed to
prevent gcc knowing that the resulting pointer is obtained by adding
an offset to the address of a symbol. As far as gcc knows, the
resulting pointer could point to anything.

It has nothing to do with linker relocations.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-25 01:35    [W:0.074 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site