[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B06F2BC.1050900@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:49:16 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: rostedt@...dmis.org
CC: Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
feng.tang@...el.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.com>,
jakub@...hat.com, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GIT PULL][v2.6.32] tracing/x86: Add check to detect
GCC messing with mcount prologue
On 11/20/2009 11:46 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Yes a gcc test suite will help new instances of gcc. But we need to
> worry about the instances of gcc that people have on their desktops now.
> This test case will catch the discrepancy between gcc and the function
> graph tracer. I'm not 100% convince that just adding -mtune=generic will
> help in all cases. If we miss another instance, then the function graph
> tracer may crash someone's kernel.
>
Furthermore, for future gcc instances what we really want is the early
interception support anyway.
-hpa
--
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