From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751707AbcFXVH6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:07:58 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([193.170.194.197]:47896 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751216AbcFXVH5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:07:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:07:53 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Andi Kleen , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , X86 ML , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: Is LTO_REFERENCE_INITCALL() still needed? Message-ID: <20160624210753.GA13997@two.firstfloor.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > But nothing quite obviously setting these upstream. I'm probably just > missing something obvious though. Either way I figured now would be a > good time to ask as I have other code that would use this, the linker > table stuff I've been working. If we can avoid propagating more use of > LTO_REFERENCE_INITCALL() then great. If we still need it its probably > good to document this a bit more as can't see anything super clear. It was a work around for a gcc 4.7 LTO problem. I guess it could be dropped by now. Yes I've been slow in submitting the LTO patches, even though they have a quite active out of tree user base. Will try to do better. -Andi