[Sam Ravnborg - Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 07:00:23PM +0100] ... | > Sam, I think eventually we should get something like this: | > | > - KPROBE will be eliminated and explicit section descriptions | > are to be used | > - ENTRY could be used / or renamed for something more descriptive | > and being used aligned jmp targets or in case of procs with | > shared body | > - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called | > mostly from C code | | So what prevents us from extending ENTRY/END instead of introducing | another set? | Let us try to extend what we have and not introduce something new. | | Sam | It could disable us to make such a conversion step-by-step I think. Of course it would be better to just extend ENTRY/END (since already there) and we could even restrict it to X86 only at the beginning but even then we have to check all ENTRY/END that they are used properly (ie like a procedure markers having @function attribute). Not sure what would be better. And btw ENDPROC is more descriptive then plain END :) - Cyrill - -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
