[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0804100811400.3143@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, pinskia@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pop previous section in alternative.c
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> A simple way to detect it on the assembler level would be checking
> that the section is the same after #NO_APP as before #APP
That would mark gcc itself as buggy, because gcc will move some things
into the #APP/#NO_APP thing, and sometimes doesn't end the #APP at all!
Try gcc -S on this this trivial "program"
asm("Hello world");
and at least I personally get
.file "bug.c"
#APP
Hello world
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
and nothing else. Note the lack of #NO_APP ;)
(I also swear I've seen code or data move _into_ the #NO_APP - ie gcc did
eventually close the #APP section, but did it too late, after it had
emitted other things itself - but maybe I just dreamed it because I can't
seem to reproduce it now. Or maybe it's just a historical gcc bug that got
fixed)
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists