From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:49:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:13521 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20024323AbXJBPtT (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:49:19 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l92FnIoI014139; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:49:18 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l92FnIOP014138; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:49:18 +0100 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:49:18 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Thiemo Seufer Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/pg-r4k.c: Dump the generated code Message-ID: <20071002154918.GA11312@linux-mips.org> References: <20071002141125.GC16772@networkno.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071002141125.GC16772@networkno.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 16795 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 03:11:26PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Dump the generated code for clear/copy page calls like it is done for TLB > > fault handlers. Useful for debugging. > > > > Signed-off-by: Maciej W. Rozycki > > --- > > Thiemo, > > > > It was your change to add ".set noreorder", etc. to the TLB fault > > handlers -- what is it needed for? I have thought gas does not try to > > outsmart the user at the moment and does not reorder ".word" directives. > > It is not strictly needed, but it is a hint to the user that he looks > at raw instructions. I have a patch which makes the generated code accessible through a procfs file. That can easily be converted back into a .o file and then be disassembled. So it's now a question of which variant is preferable. I don't mind - it's just that I've never been a friend of leaving much debugging code or features around. 99% of the time it is just make the code harder to read and maintain. Ralf