Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Yeah, that seems reasonable if you're optimising for overall size. Did
you count the difference of including the function name? We decided not
to include it for BUG because its usefulness/size tradeoff didn't seem
terribly important.
in the WARN_ON case it's not there either, based on Ingo's idea we do a
kallsyms lookup
of __builtin_return_address(0) .. same data, less memory.
But my goal was actually to reduce icache pollution, so by my reckoning
code bytes were much more expensive than data ones, so putting all BUG
information in a separate section makes those bytes much less
significant than putting anything inline in code. Also, the trap for
WARN_ON would be smaller than BUG, because it wouldn't need the spurious
infinite loop needed to make gcc understand the control flow of a BUG.
On the other hand, you could put the call to out of line warning
function in a separate section to achieve the same effect.
yeah and gcc even has a compiler option for that. Doubt it's really worth it,
we're still talking a few bytes here ;)
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
