From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com>,
shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Millton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>, David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:54:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4250.1274867681@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100526065129.GA3746@in.ibm.com>
K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C
> > file than their call sites to work on some toolchains.
> >
>
> Atleast, there are quite a few precedents inside the Linux kernel for
> __weak functions being invoked from the file in which they are defined
> (arch_hwblk_init, arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin and hw_perf_disable to
> name a few).
> Moreover the online GCC docs haven't any such constraints mentioned.
I've seen problems in this area. gcc sometimes inlines a weak function that's
in the same file as the call point.
David
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Millton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com>,
shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:54:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4250.1274867681@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100526065129.GA3746@in.ibm.com>
K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C
> > file than their call sites to work on some toolchains.
> >
>
> Atleast, there are quite a few precedents inside the Linux kernel for
> __weak functions being invoked from the file in which they are defined
> (arch_hwblk_init, arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin and hw_perf_disable to
> name a few).
> Moreover the online GCC docs haven't any such constraints mentioned.
I've seen problems in this area. gcc sometimes inlines a weak function that's
in the same file as the call point.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-26 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20100525083055.342788418@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2010-05-25 9:13 ` [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration K.Prasad
2010-05-25 9:13 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 11:39 ` Millton Miller
2010-05-25 11:39 ` Millton Miller
2010-05-26 6:51 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 9:54 ` David Howells [this message]
2010-05-26 9:54 ` David Howells
2010-05-26 15:13 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-26 15:13 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-26 17:17 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:17 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:31 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:28 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:28 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 9:14 ` [Patch 2/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Implement hw-breakpoints for PowerPC BookIII S K.Prasad
2010-05-27 6:19 ` Paul Mackerras
2010-05-28 7:39 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 9:14 ` [Patch 3/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Handle concurrent alignment interrupts K.Prasad
2010-05-27 6:20 ` Paul Mackerras
2010-05-28 7:41 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 9:15 ` [Patch 4/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Enable hw-breakpoints while handling intervening signals K.Prasad
2010-05-27 6:32 ` Paul Mackerras
[not found] <20100524102614.040177456@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2010-05-24 10:32 ` [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration K.Prasad
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=4250.1274867681@redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=dwg@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=miltonm@bga.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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.