[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyfvifCu=jDBH8LPmEHtvooVyo25dvJ+T6SQLhVidBBdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:49:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> I had patches that did exactly this:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/461
>
> But it got dropped for some reason. I don't remember why. Maybe because
> of the complexity?
Ugh. Why the crazy update_jump_label script stuff? I'd go "Eww" at
that too, it looks crazy. The assembler already knows to make short
2-byte "jmp" instructions for near jumps, and you can just look at the
opcode itself to determine size, why is all that other stuff required?
IOW, 5/7 looks sane, but 4/7 makes me go "there's something wrong with
that series".
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