[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUP6ES_PA-hYe9b1VBmCT9R8_AFeBweANJ6CRzmkST1SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 08:51:15 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ix86: fix vDSO build
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03.07.14 at 17:34, <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>>> Relying on static functions used just once to get inlined (and
>>> subsequently have dead code paths eliminated) is wrong: Compilers are
>>> free to decide whether they do this, regardless of optimization level.
>>> With this not happening for vdso_addr() (observed with gcc 4.1.x), an
>>> unresolved reference to align_vdso_addr() causes the build to fail.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>>
>> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>
> Thanks (also for the other one).
>
>> Any chance you could send a dump of the symbol and relocation tables
>> of a .so.dbg with this problem? I'm curious why checkundef.sh never
>> caught it.
>
> vma.o is part of the kernel, not the .so.
Duh :)
--Andy
--
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