From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:04:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.bawue.net ([193.7.176.63]:56218 "EHLO mail.bawue.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20024338AbXJBQEA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:04:00 +0100 Received: from lagash (intrt.mips-uk.com [194.74.144.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bawue.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8506E014B; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:03:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ths by lagash with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IckDT-00049Q-Qs; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:03:23 +0100 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:03:23 +0100 From: Thiemo Seufer To: Ralf Baechle Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/pg-r4k.c: Dump the generated code Message-ID: <20071002160323.GF16772@networkno.de> References: <20071002141125.GC16772@networkno.de> <20071002154918.GA11312@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071002154918.GA11312@linux-mips.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) 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: 16796 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: ths@networkno.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Ralf Baechle wrote: > 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 prefer output at startup. If you are interested in the disassembly you probably don't have access to /proc. :-) Thiemo