On Monday 21 November 2011 13:25:36 David Daney wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 03:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 18 November 2011 14:37:44 David Daney wrote:
> >> + switch (w2(ehdr->e_machine)) {
> >> + default:
> >> + fprintf(stderr, "unrecognized e_machine %d %s\n",
> >> + w2(ehdr->e_machine), fname);
> >> + fail_file();
> >> + break;
> >> + case EM_386:
> >> + case EM_MIPS:
> >> + case EM_X86_64:
> >> + break;
> >> + } /* end switch */
> >
> > unlike recordmcount, this file doesn't do anything arch specific. so
> > let's just delete this and be done.
>
> Not really true at this point. We don't know the size or layout of the
> architecture specific exception table entries, likewise for
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SORT_EXTABLE, we don't even know how to do the comparison.
all of your code that i could see is based on "is it 32bit or is it 64bit".
there is no code that says "if it's x86, we need to do XXX".
when i look in the kernel, we have common code behind ARCH_HAS_SORT_EXTABLE.
so you could easily do the same thing:
scripts/sortextable.c:
#ifdef ARCH_HAS_SORT_EXTABLE
switch (w2(ehdr->e_machine)) {
default:
fprintf(stderr, "unrecognized e_machine %d %s\n",
w2(ehdr->e_machine), fname);
... return a unique exit code like 77 ...
break;
/* add arch sorting info here */
} /* end switch */
#endif
kernel/extable.c:
#if defined(ARCH_HAS_SORT_EXTABLE) && !defined(ARCH_HAS_SORTED_EXTABLE)
void __init sort_main_extable(void)
{
sort_extable(__start___ex_table, __stop___ex_table);
}
#endif
this way all the people not doing unique stuff work out of the box. only the
people who are doing funky stuff need to extend things.
-mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
