[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120220105129.GB24200@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:51:29 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jkenisto@...ibm.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, ananth@...ibm.com,
anton@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
acme@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/uprobes] uprobes/core: Clean up, refactor and improve
the code
* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> [2012-02-20 08:38:23]:
>
> >
> > * Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The volatiles were added to arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c because
> > > of commit 7115e3fcf45 and 315eb8a2a1b. The volatiles are
> > > required because gcc 4.6 gave a warning about the asm operand
> > > for test_bit. So the same were added to
> > > arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c.
> >
> > Seems like a GCC bug - a bogus warning - or does it generate bad
> > code as well?
>
> Yes it is a gcc bug and was fixed by Jakub.
> As per Josh, only the first long is output if compiled on the buggy gcc.
That's an important piece of information - the more reason to
document the quirk.
> > In any case, kprobes.c did it correctly, it added the volatile
> > *and a comment*, pointing out that it's a GCC bug. No such
> > warning was added to uprobes.c, making the volatile look
> > entirely spurious.
>
> okay.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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