lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 4/4] objtool: orc_gen: Move orc_entry out of instruction structure
From
Date


On 7/30/20 2:33 PM, peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:40:48PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/20 11:03 AM, peterz@infradead.org wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41:43AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>> One orc_entry is associated with each instruction in the object file,
>>>> but having the orc_entry contained by the instruction structure forces
>>>> architectures not implementing the orc subcommands to provide a dummy
>>>> definition of the orc_entry.
>
>> I guess I forgot about the usecase of running objtool on vmlinux...
>
> Right, and LTO builds will even do ORC at that level.
>
>> On a kernel build for x86_64 defconfig, the difference in time seems to be
>> withing the noise.
>
> Good.
>
>> But I agree the proposed code is not ideal and on the other we've tried
>> avoiding #ifdef in the code. Ideally I'd have an empty orc_entry definition
>> when SUBCMD_ORC is not implemented.
>>
>> Would you have a suggested approach to do that?
>
> How ugly is having that:
>
> struct orc_entry { };
>
> ?

Not sure I am understanding the suggestion. Without #ifdef this will
conflict with the definition in <asm/orc_types.h> for x86. Or every arch
needs to provide their own <asm/orc_types.h> and definition of struct
orc_entry, even if they don't implement the orc subcommand.

Which would be preferable? #ifdef? or arch provided definition? (or
something I have not thought of)

--
Julien Thierry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-30 15:46    [W:0.098 / U:33.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site