From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757214Ab0EZR2T (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 26 May 2010 13:28:19 -0400
Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.5]:40955 "EHLO
	e28smtp05.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755540Ab0EZR2S (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 26 May 2010 13:28:18 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 22:58:10 +0530
From: "K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: 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
Message-ID: <20100526172810.GA3701@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20100526065129.GA3746@in.ibm.com> <20100525083055.342788418@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100525091356.GB29003@in.ibm.com> <1274787559_8162@mail4.comsite.net> <4250.1274867681@redhat.com> <20100526171742.GA5563@in.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100526171742.GA5563@in.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:47:42PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:54:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> We've seen such behaviour even otherwise....even with noinline attribute
> in place. I'm not sure if this gcc fix
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922) helped correct the

Looks like I cited the wrong bug. The appropriate one is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34563.

Thanks,
K.Prasad