On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:19:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

quoted text
> I have an objection against this approach:
> 
> Our __*init*/__*exit* annotations are already a constant source of bugs, 
> and adding more pifalls (e.g. forgotten removal of _i()/_e() when a 
> function is no longer __*init*/__*exit*) doesn't sound like a good plan.
> 
> Shouldn't it be possible to automatically determine where to put the 
> strings? I don't know enough gcc/ld voodoo for being able to tell 
> whether it is currently possible, and if yes how, but doing it 
> automatically sounds like the only solution that wouldn't result in an
> unmaintainable mess.

gcc tends to place data such as strings or jump tables generated from
switches not into a place were it would be easily discardable.  The
latter is the reason that on MIPS we can't discard __exit functions
at all - a switch table in .rodata might be referencing discarded code
in .exit.text which makes ld fail.  When I discussed this with some gcc
people a while ago nobody really had a good suggestion to solve this.

  Ralf
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/