Hi, On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacom...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> [cc list trimmed] >> >> on 08/11/2011 22:34 Attilio Rao said the following: >>> 2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe <lacom...@gmail.com>: >>>> To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only "talk" >>>> without "action", I did implement what I suggested above. As it is >>>> quite a large patch-set, I will not post it directly here, however, it >>>> is available on github: >>> >>> I really think that this is way too dependent by the good health of >>> your tool, thus that is highly fragile. >>> >>> However, you may have more luck by just the core of your kernel >>> changes here, for comment and leave alone all the (ptr -> >>> LOCK_FILE/LOCK_LINE conversion). >>> >>> Said that, I think this logic is too fragile and likely won't be as >>> effective as __FILE__/__LINE__ in many cases. >> >> I agree. >> If we were able to somehow automatically, magically, easily and correctly >> determine an instruction pointer of a caller, then it would make sense to >> ditch >> explicit passing of __FILE__/__LINE__ arguments in favor of doing instruction >> pointer decoding. >> > again, no need for magic, this already exists, as the form of gcc[0]'s > __builtin_return_address(0). > actually, this should be __builtin_return_address(1).
- Arnaud _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
