[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200730133343.GN2655@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:33:43 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
mhelsley@...are.com, mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] objtool: orc_gen: Move orc_entry out of
instruction structure
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:40:48PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/20 11:03 AM, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41:43AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > One orc_entry is associated with each instruction in the object file,
> > > but having the orc_entry contained by the instruction structure forces
> > > architectures not implementing the orc subcommands to provide a dummy
> > > definition of the orc_entry.
> I guess I forgot about the usecase of running objtool on vmlinux...
Right, and LTO builds will even do ORC at that level.
> On a kernel build for x86_64 defconfig, the difference in time seems to be
> withing the noise.
Good.
> But I agree the proposed code is not ideal and on the other we've tried
> avoiding #ifdef in the code. Ideally I'd have an empty orc_entry definition
> when SUBCMD_ORC is not implemented.
>
> Would you have a suggested approach to do that?
How ugly is having that:
struct orc_entry { };
?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists