From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aneesh V Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:00:18 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 1/6] arm: adapt asm/linkage.h from Linux In-Reply-To: <201202231852.36784.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1328528248-20872-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com> <201202230959.02378.vapier@gentoo.org> <4F467A26.1070602@ti.com> <201202231852.36784.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <4F4766BA.7080909@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Friday 24 February 2012 05:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2012 12:40:54 Aneesh V wrote: >> On Thursday 23 February 2012 08:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Thursday 23 February 2012 09:06:01 Aneesh V wrote: >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/linkage.h >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ >>>> +#ifndef __ASM_LINKAGE_H >>>> +#define __ASM_LINKAGE_H >>> >>> needs copyright/license comment header >> >> As Tom mentioned, I don't know whose copyright it is. > > sorry, i assumed you were creating it from scratch > >>>> +#define ENDPROC(name) \ >>>> +.type name, %function; \ >>>> +END(name) >>> >>> please change linux/linkage.h instead. % should be safe for everyone. >> >> The spec says that STT_FUNC will work for all archs. How about using >> that? > > i'd prefer to use %function in the common code, but i won't fight too hard. > reading gas/config/obj-elf.c seems to back up your STT_FUNC claims; it's just > that i've found @function/%function to be much more common in practice than > using STT_FUNC. i've only see the latter in more esoteric code ... I don't have any strong preference either. I was just trying to see if it's documented in gcc manuals that %function works for all and I stumbled upon STT_FUNC. I agree that %function looks more natural, but since we are hiding it in a macro, I think it doesn't matter much anyway. I will do it with STT_FUNC. br, Aneesh