[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzNDM6AN5728GPrmCtvRGYyqC7SZH0aQbSm=bdftYVLEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 16:29:37 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> hjl already posted an example of the kinds of horrors glibc does to do
> things "right".
Side note: we'd hopefully/presumably never need anything _that_
disgusting for the kernel, so hjl's example is probably an extreme
one.
But even when we just did the pushq/popq_cfi macros etc to try to have
simple and reasonably legible annotations for the common cases, it got
pretty ugly.
It wasn't that extreme glibc kind of "50 lines of ugly for two
instructions of code", but it was pretty bad. And as far as I know we
never even tried to annotate places where we did "pushf/pop %reg" in
inline asm (for saving/restoring flags)
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists