Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.7 for 2.6.17 (with type checking!)

[Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@krystal.dyndns.org>]

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@goop.org) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >#define MARK_SYM(name) \
> >        do { \
> >                __label__ here; \
> >                volatile static void *__mark_kprobe_##name \
> >                        asm (MARK_CALL_PREFIX#name) \
> >                        __attribute__((unused)) = &&here; \
> >here: \
> >                do { } while(0); \
> >        } while(0)
> >
> >Which fixes the problem. Some tests showed me that the compiler does not 
> >unroll
> >an otherwise unrolled loop when this specific macro is called. (test done 
> >with
> >-funroll-all-loops).
> 
> Eh?  I thought you wanted to avoid changing the generated code?  
> Inhibiting loop unrolling could be a pretty large change...
> 

Yes, if possible. But letting gcc duplicate those symbols brings many questions,
such as : how can we name each of them differently ? Is there any way to
automatically increment an "identifier" counter in assembly ?

Mathieu

OpenPGP public key:              http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint:     8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/