[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170320133243.5rvae6liwwqg4dve@treble>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:32:43 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] x86: assembly, FUNC_START for fn, DATA_START
for data
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:32:14PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> This is a start of series to cleanup macros used for starting functions,
> data, globals etc. across x86. When we have all this sorted out, this
> will help to inject DWARF unwinding info by objtool later.
>
> The goal is forcing SYM_FUNC_START to emit .cfi_startproc and
> SYM_FUNC_END to emit .cfi_endproc. Automatically at best.
Do we still want to emit .cfi_startproc/endproc from the macro? From
our last discussion, that seemed to be up in the air.
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170217211804.j6l2d7t5mfzqzmbt@treble
What did you think about making CFI read-only for .c object files and
write-only for .S object files?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists