[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180627151544.wieelchsffq3gjel@treble>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:15:44 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Allan Xavier <allan.x.xavier@...cle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: Fix GCC 8 cold function processing without
-freorder-functions
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:35:03AM +0100, Allan Xavier wrote:
> Looks good overall, just one comment.
>
> On 26/06/18 19:44, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Unfortunately, -fnoreorder-functions puts the child
> > + * inside the parent. Remove the overlap so we can
> > + * have sane assumptions.
> > + */
> > + if (sym->sec == pfunc->sec &&
> > + sym->offset >= pfunc->offset &&
> > + sym->offset < pfunc->offset + pfunc->len &&
> > + sym->offset + sym->len == pfunc->offset + pfunc->len) {
> > + pfunc->len -= sym->len;
>
> It's a bit of a nit but I'd say you could drop the third condition of the if
> since sym->offset would have to be less than pfunc->offset + pfunc->len for the
> fourth condition to ever be true. The only situation it would have caught is
> where sym->len == 0, which I think (hope?) is reasonable to assume wont happen
> and wouldn't have had an effect on pfunc->len anyway.
>
> if (sym->sec == pfunc->sec &&
> sym->offset >= pfunc->offset &&
> sym->offset + sym->len == pfunc->offset + pfunc->len)
Thanks, will do.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists