* Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > so what's your point? > > Using this kind of trick makes it harder to share code with other > libraries that may require a higher standard of portability (not > "better" or "worse", just "higher"). [...] That's an complication but should be fixable, should it ever happen. As things stand today we: - Are *already* using an ELF linker script, see tools/kvm/bios/rom.ld.S - Have multiple valid reasons not to use ((constructor)) - Want to use sections to implement other useful features as well If the *only* linker script use would be the init facility then you'd probably have a valid point - although the possible code flow fragility with ((constructor)) is still a problem: we still would want to know when no constructors were executed. Also it's not clear why ((constructor)) was written in the way it was: why apparently no access is given to the array of init functions and why it's not possible to turn the auto-execution off but still have the array generated, for legitimate cases that want to use data driven constructor execution. > >>>>>> I know portability is not relevant to tools/kvm/, but using > >>>>>> unportable tricks for the sake of using them is a direct way > >>>>>> to NIH. But oh well all of tools/kvm/ is NIH after all. :) > > > > Btw., that NIH claim was rather unfair and uncalled for as well. > > Hey hey I put a smiley for a reason! Well after two insults in a single paragraph you need to put in at least two smileys! Or not write the insults in a technical discssion to begin with, especially if you are criticising a patch rather forcefully. It will be easily misunderstood as a real insult, despite the smiley ;-) > Anyway I think we both agree that this debate is pointless. I > learnt something (I wasn't aware of interaction between > ((constructor)) and static libraries), you learnt something (it's > the same with ((section)), and it's intrinsic in how static > libraries work). While i did not know whether static libraries would work with a linker script (never tried it - and your experiment suggests that they wont), the ((section)) approach we could create a clear runtime BUG_ON() assert for a zero-sized array of init function pointers, while ((constructor)) will silently not execute initialization functions. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
