Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels.
>>>
>> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in asm-x86/paravirt.h?
>>
>
> yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and still
> is).
Do you have a patch to do this already?
>> Andi argued we should remove them since x86 is unconditionally regparm
>> now anyway - and they're pretty ugly syntactically.
>>
>
> Sure, it doesnt make things prettier, but i didnt see any particular
> ugliness.
Hm, how can we get gcc to complain about inconsistent use of fastcall?
It doesn't generate any warnings if the function and its pointer are
inconsistent, presumably because everything is regparm(3) anyway...
J
-
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]
