[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150326151557.61dfad84272aff10aaa4eba7@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:15:57 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: gcc@....gnu.org, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: String literals in __init functions
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > I'd have thought that a function-wide
> > __attribute__((__string_section__(foo))
> > wouldn't be a ton of work to implement.
>
> Maybe not.
>
> Could some future version of gcc move string constants
> in a function to a specific section marked in a manner
> similar to what Andrew described above?
One thing which might complexicate this is
void foo()
{
p("bar");
}
void __attribute__((__string_section__(.init.rodata)) zot()
{
p("bar");
}
It would be silly to create two instances of "bar".
Change it thusly:
#define __mark_str(str) \
({ static const char var[] __attribute__((__section__(".init.string"))) = str; var; })
void foo()
{
p("bar");
}
void zot()
{
p(__mark_str("bar"));
}
and we indeed get two copies of "bar".
It would be nice not to do that, but I guess that losing this
optimization is a reasonable compromise.
--
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