lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files
    On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Alexander van Heukelum
    <heukelum@fastmail.fm> wrote:
    [...]
    >> >
    >> > Sam, I think eventually we should get something like this:
    >> >
    >> > - KPROBE will be eliminated and explicit section descriptions
    >> > are to be used
    >> > - ENTRY could be used / or renamed for something more descriptive
    >> > and being used aligned jmp targets or in case of procs with
    >> > shared body
    >
    > I don't think ENTRY should be used for nested procedures. If the
    > author wants to do something like that, he better knew something
    > about the assembler anyhow.

    Author anyway have to knew something. We can't bring some kind
    of lexical machine that eliminate this needing :)

    >
    >> > - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called
    >> > mostly from C code
    >
    > Currently there is many different patterns. Some functions use ENTRY
    > without END, some use ENTRY/ENDPROC, some use ENDPROC without annotation
    > at the start...

    Alexander, I was just trying to say Sam about what we're planning to get
    at the end of all this procedure. I mean I know there are some issues to
    be fixed first.

    Fix me if I'm wrong.

    >
    >> So what prevents us from extending ENTRY/END instead of introducing
    >> another set?
    >
    > ENTRY/END alone is not enough if one wants to be able to distinguish
    > between code (functions) and non-executed data.
    >
    >> Let us try to extend what we have and not introduce something new.
    >
    > Agreed. I vote to complement the existing ENDPROC annotation with
    > the proposed PROC annotation. Let's call that an extension, not
    > something new ;). As it stands it is not impossible to go with
    > ENTRY/ENDPROC for code and ENTRY/END for data. However, ENTRY
    > implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data
    > might differ.

    If ENTRY will be used for data objects it shouldn't contain any kind of
    alignment since in general we could have arrays of bytes, words and so on.

    >
    > Greetings,
    > Alexander
    >
    >> Sam
    > --
    > Alexander van Heukelum
    > heukelum@fastmail.fm


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-12-18 13:05    [W:0.025 / U:31.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site