public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] x86: use asm .macro instead of cpp #define in entry_32.S
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:11:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090210111154.GA7822@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4990D5F5.9030409@goop.org>


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hmm... I originally did the conversion because I had some .if trick in
>> SAVE_ALL which got removed later.  Even after the removal, it
>> generally looked like a good idea as x86_64 asm was primarily using
>> .macro too.  I do like being able to see the post-processing output of
>> cpp too but for assembler disassembling the output often seem to give
>> enough clue,
>
> That's assuming that the file assembles.  But if you're trying to assemble
> and the best error the assembler comes up with is "bad operand" on the line
> where you're using the macro, its extremely frustrating trying to work out
> where the problem actually lies.

Yeah, i had that experience with GAS usability with all the CFI restructuring
we did.

But it should be pretty rare that we come up with instructions that do not
assemble - and even rarer that we come up with a _lot_ of new instructions
that do not assemble. The trick i used was to remove bits of the macro to
hone in on the bad instruction/construct. Stone-age tool but works.

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-02-10 11:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-09 13:39 [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32 Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86: include correct %gs in a.out core dump Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 17:12   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86: math_emu info cleanup Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:42   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 13:45     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 13:52       ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86: fix math_emu register frame access Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 17:13   ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-09 23:40     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10  1:08     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 04/11] elf: add ELF_CORE_COPY_KERNEL_REGS() Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86: stackprotector.h misc update Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 06/11] stackprotector: update make rules Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86: no stack protector for vdso Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86: use asm .macro instead of cpp #define in entry_32.S Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 18:34   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-10  1:14     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10  1:18       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-10 11:11         ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86: add %gs accessors for x86_32 Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86: make lazy %gs optional on x86_32 Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 18:12   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-10  1:27     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10  1:51       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86: implement x86_32 stack protector Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 15:25   ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-10 15:39     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11  7:31       ` [PATCH x86#core/percpu] x86: fix x86_32 stack protector bugs Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 10:34         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:18           ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:55 ` [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32 Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 14:06   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 20:30     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10 13:56       ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:16         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 14:12   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10 13:54     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:16       ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:20         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10 14:26           ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 10:57             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 11:18               ` [PATCH] stackprotector: fix multi-word cross-builds Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:19                 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:19       ` [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32 Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 14:09 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-09 14:15   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10  1:36     ` Tejun Heo

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=20090210111154.GA7822@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox