From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pf0-x244.google.com (mail-pf0-x244.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::244])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF281A003C
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:34:37 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id 71so2289294pfv.1
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 01:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1455183268.2885.17.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] ppc64 ftrace_with_regs configuration variables
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
 Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Jessica Yu
 <jeyu@redhat.com>,  Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:34:28 +1100
In-Reply-To: <20160211084230.GB29683@lst.de>
References: <20160210174221.EBBEC692C8@newverein.lst.de>
 <20160210174450.9C065692C8@newverein.lst.de>
 <1455176897.2885.12.camel@gmail.com> <20160211084230.GB29683@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 09:42 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 06:48:17PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 17:25 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > +
> > > +echo "int func() { return 0; }" | \
> > > +    $* -S -x c -O2 -p -mprofile-kernel - -o - 2> /dev/null | \
> > > +    sed -n -e '/func:/,/bl _mcount/p' | grep -q TOC
> > > +
> > > +leaf_toc_result=$?
> > > +
> > 
> > leaf_toc_result failed for me with gcc 5. I'll try and grab gcc-6
> > and give the patches a spin
> 
> Don't bother. _All_ gccs are broken in that respect currently.
> AFAIK Anton is working on this. You have to fake the test, like
> static int a; return a++;
> 
> Gcc fails to set the TOC for profiled "leaf" functions, where it
> thinks no global/static symbols are referenced.
> 
> 

Thanks for the quick answer

BTW, do we expect static/non global functions to be called from
patched contexts? I understand that not supporting it will
complicate a patch.

Balbir Singh