All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Problematic __attribute__((section(" "))) and gcc alignment
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:09:15 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070622180915.GA15352@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070622172048.GA30761@uranus.ravnborg.org>

* Sam Ravnborg (sam@ravnborg.org) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:32:36PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I just realized, working on my marker infrastructure, that a lot of 
> > __attribute__((section(" "))) should probably come along with an
> > aligned() attribute. Since there are no data structures of size greater
> > or equal to 32 bytes put in these sections later referred to by
> > __sectionname_start[] and __sectionname_end[], the problem is never
> > encountered (AFAIK). But as soon as these structures will reach 32 bytes
> > in size, things will go ill:
> > 
> > Let's take arch/i386/boot/video.h as an example:
> > 
> > it defines 
> > 
> > struct card_info {
> >         const char *card_name;
> >         int (*set_mode)(struct mode_info *mode);
> >         int (*probe)(void);
> >         struct mode_info *modes;
> >         int nmodes;             /* Number of probed modes so far */
> >         int unsafe;             /* Probing is unsafe, only do after "scan" */
> >         u16 xmode_first;        /* Unprobed modes to try to call anyway */
> >         u16 xmode_n;            /* Size of unprobed mode range */
> > };
> > 
> > Which is 28 bytes in size (so it is ok for now). If one single field is
> > added, gcc will start aligning this structure on 32 bytes boundaries.
> > (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1999-11/msg00914.html)
> > 
> > We then have
> > #define __videocard struct card_info __attribute__((section(".videocards")))
> > extern struct card_info video_cards[], video_cards_end[];
> > 
> > Which instructs gcc to put these structures in the .videocards section.
> > The linker scripts arch/i386/boot/setup.ld will assign video_cards and
> > video_cards_end as pointers to the beginning and the end of this
> > section. video_cards[0] is therefore expected to give the first
> > structure in the section.
> 
> The linker will align the start of the section to the biggest alignment
> required by any member in the section. So gcc should tell the linker
> that video_cards needs 32 bytes alignemnt and we are not facing trobles.
> 
> BUT this requires that the labels in the linker script file are
> correct assigned like this:
> 
>  .tracedata : AT(ADDR(.tracedata) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
>         __tracedata_start = .;
>         *(.tracedata)
>         __tracedata_end = .;
>   }
> 
> If the assignment of __tracedata_start was doen just before the .tracedata
> we would not use the alignment imposed by linker and would see the error you describe.
> 

Hi Sam,

I was experiencing problems with my addons to the DATA_DATA macro,
declaring stuff in the .data section. It looked like: 

(vmlinux.lds.h) in -mm :

/* .data section */
#define DATA_DATA                                                       \
        *(.data)                                                        \
        *(.data.init.refok)                                             \
        . = ALIGN(8);                                                  \
        VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__start___markers) = .;                          \
        *(__markers)                                                    \
        VMLINUX_SYMBOL(__stop___markers) = .;

All this is declared within the .data section. However, I could not
declare a different section within this macro, because it is already
placed in a section; i.e.

(arch/i386/vmlinux.lds.S) in -mm :
  . = ALIGN(4096);
  .data : AT(ADDR(.data) - LOAD_OFFSET) {       /* Data */
        DATA_DATA
        CONSTRUCTORS
        } :data

Using . = ALIGN(32); fixed my issue, but I wonder if there would be some
way to express the ".tracedata : AT(ADDR(.tracedata) - LOAD_OFFSET)"
that would automatically take care of alignment within this macro?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

  reply	other threads:[~2007-06-22 18:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-21 20:32 Problematic __attribute__((section(" "))) and gcc alignment Mathieu Desnoyers
2007-06-22 17:20 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-06-22 18:09   ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2007-07-23  0:45 ` Denis Vlasenko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070622180915.GA15352@Krystal \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.