* Frank Ch. Eigler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think your implementation is questionable if it causes any kind of
> > jumps and conditions, even marked unlikely. Just put the needed data
> > in a seperate section which can be used by the debugging tools.
> > [...] No need to actually mess with the code for the usual cases.
>
> Trouble is that it is specifically the *unusual* cases that need
> compiler assistance via static markers, otherwise we'd manage with
> just k/djprobes & debuginfo type efforts.
i think it's all fine as long as it's just a single 5-byte NOP that we
are inserting - because in the *usual* case the 'parameter access
side-effects' should have no effect. They will have an effect in the
*unusual* case though, but that's very much by design - and it's not a
performance issue because it's 1) unusual, 2) at most means a bit
different code organization by gcc. It very likely wont mean any extra
branches even in the unusual case. Or do i underestimate the scope of
the problem? ;-)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
