[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080501233038.GA20601@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:30:39 -0700
From: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To: Tom Rini <trini@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bunk@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:21:16PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:42:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Is there some vaguely maintainable workaround we can do? If the problem
> > only affects completely-empty weak functions then we could put something in
> > them to make them non-empty?
>
> My memory is a tiny bit hazy (it was a while ago), but no, it's not just
> empty functions (again, I _think_ I hit it with a generic vs arch weak
> function).
>
Other thing we observed was: this does not just depend on the __weak
function definition. It also depends on where the function is called from.
__weak function with single return statement, did not get inlined when called
from say
caller()
{
function();
}
but got inlined when called as in
caller()
{
for (;;) {
function();
}
}
Thanks,
Venki
--
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