[Alexander van Heukelum - Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:40:55PM +0100] | | On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:03:25 +0300, "Cyrill Gorcunov" | <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx> said: | > 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. | | I understood, but I wanted to avoid the meme that this procedure is | just ebout renaming ENTRY->PROC and END->ENDPROC ;). I wish it would be just renaming :-) | | > 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. | | I would suggest using sizeof(long) alignment for data. Maybe we could use more flexible scheme? Lets imagine we could need to use not sizeof(long) on x86-64 for example... say in boot/compressed/head_64.S... say for boot_heap. Should we use DATAENTRY here? Or it's planned to use DATAENTRY for global defs only? Alexander, don't get me wrong I'm just starting to confuse with ENRTY/PROC/DATAENTRY :) Letme try to classify them a bit (like they would be used in future). If we have them classified it would be easier to distinguish their usage and how they should be implemented - PROC/ENDPROC for "C" callers - they are: aligned, .global, .size and .type and @function - DATA/ENDDATA for data objects - they are: aligned as sizeof(long), .global, .size right? | | Greetings, | Alexander | -- | Alexander van Heukelum | heukelum@xxxxxxxxxxx - 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
