From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:20:16 +0000 Message-ID: <494A31F0.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <1229505475-10219-1-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <1229505475-10219-2-git-send-email-heukelum@fastmail.fm> <20081217172640.GB5436@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20081217173824.GF8078@localhost> <20081217180023.GA5783@uranus.ravnborg.org> <1229593918.31758.1290707307@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from vpn.id2.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:39857 "EHLO vpn.id2.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751069AbYLRKTz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:19:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1229593918.31758.1290707307@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alexander van Heukelum , Sam Ravnborg Cc: Ingo Molnar , Cyrill Gorcunov , Andrew Morton , Alexander van Heukelum , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, LKML >>> "Alexander van Heukelum" 18.12.08 10:51 >>> >Agreed. I vote to complement the existing ENDPROC annotation with >the proposed PROC annotation. Let's call that an extension, not >something new ;). As it stands it is not impossible to go with >ENTRY/ENDPROC for code and ENTRY/END for data. However, ENTRY Not really: At least on ia64 these cannot be mixed (and there as well as any other architectures that may have such requirements) replacing ENTRY() with PROC() and END() with ENDPROC() will likely be necessary. >implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data >might differ. Jan