From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
To: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: "Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Al Viro" <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: section breakage on ppc64 (aka __devinitconst is broken by design)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:17:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47AC2C1F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080208084744.GA27120@uranus.ravnborg.org>
>Al posted the following:
>====================================================================
>; cat >a.c <<'EOF'
>const char foo[] __attribute__ ((__section__(".blah"))) = "";
>const char * const bar __attribute__((__section__(".blah"))) = "";
>EOF
>; gcc -m32 -S a.c
>; gcc -m64 -S a.c
>a.c:2: error: bar causes a section type conflict
>;
>
>That's 4.1.2 on ppc. What happens is that the second declaration
>wants to make .blah writable. We actually trigger that in ppc64
>builds on drivers/net/natsemi.c.
>
>Note that on ppc64 without explicit sections you have the second one land in
>.data.rel.ro.local, which is "aw",progbits.
>====================================================================
>
>Se we see that despite being marked as const the the section
>is in one case marked as read-only by gcc and in another case the section
>is marked as rw.
Oh, indeed, this kind of a construct also fails for ia64 on existing gcc-s.
>And this is with the gcc version that is in use today and which
>we must support.
>Thats why I think we have to loose the constification that is going on
>or we should loose the section attribute on the data.
That is very unfortunate, but is then a good reason to fold the
'const' into the __devinitconst definition as I originally suggested (and
perhaps that's the reason why I didn't have problems with my version
of the patch on ia64) - that way, those architectures that can't tolerate
it could have __devinitconst continue to resolve to __devinitdata,
resulting in traditional section allocation, while targets like x86 can still
benefit from the constification.
Apart from that we may want to approach the gcc folks to allow a way
to override this 'optimization for the kernel (or more generally for
statically linked executables).
Jan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-08 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-03 13:08 section breakage on ppc64 (aka __devinitconst is broken by design) Al Viro
2008-02-03 17:26 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-02-03 18:02 ` Al Viro
2008-02-03 20:30 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-02-03 21:02 ` Al Viro
2008-02-04 0:27 ` Olivier Galibert
2008-02-07 18:33 ` Chuck Ebbert
2008-02-07 18:54 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-02-08 8:14 ` Jan Beulich
2008-02-08 8:47 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-02-08 9:17 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
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=47AC2C1F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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