On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 00:06 +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:59:17AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > 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. > > Correct. > > > > 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. > > Then maybe building with -fno-jump-tables option would be better solution. > I don't think that it will have a noticeable impact on code size or > performance, especially on x86. > > So we need something like this (assuming gcc eventually gets fixed, > say gcc 4.5 ;) > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -lt, 0405, \ > $(call cc-option, -fno-jump-tables)) This is way beyond a SCSI issue. Time to take it to linux-arch I think ... do you want to do the honours? 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
