[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <842212692.9780293.1596123256621.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:34:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vladis Dronov <vdronov@...hat.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix function annotations to avoid section
mismatch warnings with gcc-10
Hello, Michael,
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Ellerman" <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix function annotations to avoid section mismatch warnings with gcc-10
>
...
> >> > So what changed? These functions were inlined with older compilers, but
> >> > not anymore?
> >>
> >> Yes, exactly. Gcc-10 does not inline them anymore. If this is because of
> >> my
> >> build system, this can happen to others also.
> >>
> >> The same thing was fixed by Linus in e99332e7b4cd ("gcc-10: mark more
> >> functions
> >> __init to avoid section mismatch warnings").
> >
> > It sounds like this is part of "-finline-functions was retuned" on
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html>? So everyone should see it
> > (no matter what config or build system), and it is a good thing too :-)
>
> I haven't seen it in my GCC 10 builds, so there must be some other
> subtlety. Probably it depends on details of the .config.
>
I've just had this building the latest upstream for the ppc64le with a derivative
of the RHEL-8 config. This can probably be a compiler/linker setting, like -O2
versus -O3.
> cheers
Best regards,
Vladis Dronov | Red Hat, Inc. | The Core Kernel | Senior Software Engineer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists