Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-02T21:10:19Z

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 05:49:46AM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: David Miller
>>> From: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> Date: Tue, 29
>>> Apr 2008 18:31:09 -0700
>>>
>>>
>>>> Some flavors of gcc 4.1.0 and 4.1.1 seems to have trouble
>>>>
>>> understanding
>>>
>>>> weak function definitions. Calls to function from the same
>>>>
>>> file where it is
>>>
>>>> defined as weak _may_ get inlined, even when there is a
>>>>
>>> non-weak definition of
>>>
>>>> the function elsewhere. I tried using attribute 'noinline'
>>>>
>>> which does not
>>>
>>>> seem to help either.
>>>>
>>>> One workaround for this is to have weak functions defined in
>>>>
>>> different
>>>
>>>> file as below. Other possible way is to not use weak
>>>>
>>> functions and go back
>>>
>>>> to ifdef logic.
>>>>
>>>> There are few other usages in kernel that seem to depend on
>>>>
>>> weak (and noinline)
>>>
>>>> working correctly, which can also potentially break and
>>>>
>>> needs such workarounds.
>>>
>>>> Example -
>>>> mach_reboot_fixups() in arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c is one such
>>>>
>>> call which
>>>
>>>> is getting inlined with a flavor of gcc 4.1.1.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
>>>>
>>> This sounds like a bug. And if gcc does multi-file compilation it
>>> can in theory do the same mistake even if you move it to another
>>> file.
>>>
>>> We need something more bulletproof here.
>>>
>>>
>> The references here
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2006-05/msg02801.html
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27781
>>
>> seem to suggest that the bug is only with weak definition in the same
>> file.
>> So, having them in a different file should be good enough workaround
>> here.
>> ...
>>
>
> A workaround here is the wrong solution since this isn't the only place
> that suffers from this issue.
>
> We currently give a #warning for 4.1.0.
> But not for 4.1.1.
> (Accordingto the bug >= 4.1.2 is fixed.)
>
> And a #warning is not enough.
>
> The huge problem is that "empty __weak function in the same file and
> non-weak arch function" has recently become a common pattern with
> several new usages added during this merge window alone.
>
> And the breakages can be very subtle runtime breakages.
>
> I see only the following choices:
> - remove __weak and replace all current usages
> - move all __weak functions into own files, and ensure that also happens
> for future usages
> - #error for gcc 4.1.{0,1}
>

- make __weak also include noinline. I think that's sufficient (at
least it was when I encountered a gcc bug with these symptoms last year
or so).

J