Hi -
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:50:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [...] let me qualify that: parameters must be prepared there too -
> but no actual function call inserted. (at most a NOP
> inserted). [...] Does a simple asm() that takes read-only
> parameters but only adds a NOP achieve this result?
You mean something like this?
#define MARK(n,v1,v2,v3) asm ("__mark_" #n ": nop" :: \
"X" (v1), "X" (v2), "X" (v3))
I haven't been able to get gcc to emit any better debuginfo for
parameters pseudo-passed like this.
(I've tested such a marker inserted into an inner loop of dhrystone.
It was compiled with "-ggdb -O3". Neither gdb nor systemtap could
resolve the same values/symbols being passed as MARK() arguments,
though at least the breakpoint address was nicely marked.)
- FChE
Attachment:
pgpPJtDRJiqQY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans (NTP changes)
- Next by Date: RE: New section mismatch warning on latest linux-2.6 git tree
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
- Index(es):
 |