On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 18:31 +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 09:01:44AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > With gcc 4.2.3 I get the same error. The noinline patch fixes it again. > > > > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > > 6721720 624416 397508 7743644 76289c vmlinux-gcc-4.2.3 > > > > OK, so it's an unfixed bug in gcc, and it looks to be specific to the > > alpha backend. > > No, other architectures are just lucky that the compiler decides > a) not to generate a jump table for switch statement in sd_major() and/or > b) not to inline this function. > > I have a similar test case that fails on x86 as well. But if that's true then the whole basis for our section based discards is bogus, because the statement generating the jump table could be inside the actual function body instead of being inlined, so if it's failing on x86 as well, we likely need it fixed there too. > > if the compiler chooses to inline a function, it has to > > respect the sectional (and other constraints) of the outer function. > > Can someone file a bug report with the relevant compiler people? > > It would be good, but in the meantime the 'noinline' fix seems to be > a most sensible option... We can certainly add it as a short term option. However, given the push in certain quarters to make even more use of sections as a means of discarding code, we're going to have to ask someone to fix the compiler. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
