On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 03.07.14 at 17:34, <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>> Relying on static functions used just once to get inlined (and >>> subsequently have dead code paths eliminated) is wrong: Compilers are >>> free to decide whether they do this, regardless of optimization level. >>> With this not happening for vdso_addr() (observed with gcc 4.1.x), an >>> unresolved reference to align_vdso_addr() causes the build to fail. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> >> >> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> > > Thanks (also for the other one). > >> Any chance you could send a dump of the symbol and relocation tables >> of a .so.dbg with this problem? I'm curious why checkundef.sh never >> caught it. > > vma.o is part of the kernel, not the .so.
Duh :) --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
