(trimmed Ccs... jeez) On 19 August 2016 at 23:41, <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The original v3 series for linker tables made reference only to > an external repository userspace sandbox application, however > Boris noted it'd be difficult ot keep this in sync with the > kernel so advised to consider integrate with the kernel. I've > taken steps in this direction. [...] > Please let me know if there are any issue or questions. +#define __VMLINUX_SYMBOL(x) x +#define VMLINUX_SYMBOL(x) __VMLINUX_SYMBOL(x) +#define LINUX_SECTION_START(name) VMLINUX_SYMBOL(name) +#define DECLARE_LINUX_SECTION(type, name) \ + extern type VMLINUX_SYMBOL(name)[], \ + VMLINUX_SYMBOL(name##__end)[] +#define DECLARE_LINKTABLE(type, name) \ + DECLARE_LINUX_SECTION(type, name) +#define LINKTABLE_FOR_EACH(pointer, tbl) \ + for (pointer = LINUX_SECTION_START(tbl); \ + pointer < LINUX_SECTION_END(tbl); \ + pointer++) I think this is subject to getting optimised out by newer gccs, since it sees the START(tbl) and END(tbl) symbols as two completely different arrays. See the short discussion here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/26/73 (the first attempt is wrong, so don't look at that) It is possible that < is different from != and always does the right thing, but I haven't checked. I have a WIP branch that converts most of the existing tables in the kernel to use the external_array() macro which makes gcc throw away any knowledge it had about a pointer being part of an array. Vegard -- 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
