On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] >> > >> > 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 > > I don't think ENTRY should be used for nested procedures. If the > author wants to do something like that, he better knew something > about the assembler anyhow. Author anyway have to knew something. We can't bring some kind of lexical machine that eliminate this needing :) > >> > - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called >> > mostly from C code > > Currently there is many different patterns. Some functions use ENTRY > without END, some use ENTRY/ENDPROC, some use ENDPROC without annotation > at the start... Alexander, I was just trying to say Sam about what we're planning to get at the end of all this procedure. I mean I know there are some issues to be fixed first. Fix me if I'm wrong. > >> So what prevents us from extending ENTRY/END instead of introducing >> another set? > > ENTRY/END alone is not enough if one wants to be able to distinguish > between code (functions) and non-executed data. > >> Let us try to extend what we have and not introduce something new. > > Agreed. I vote to complement the existing ENDPROC annotation with > the proposed PROC annotation. Let's call that an extension, not > something new ;). As it stands it is not impossible to go with > ENTRY/ENDPROC for code and ENTRY/END for data. However, ENTRY > implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data > might differ. If ENTRY will be used for data objects it shouldn't contain any kind of alignment since in general we could have arrays of bytes, words and so on. > > Greetings, > Alexander > >> Sam > -- > Alexander van Heukelum > heukelum@xxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
