(adding g...@gcc.gnu.org) On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 14:40 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <mini...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's > > useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance > > burden? > > I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the > code up a bit.
I think it's overall a pretty low cost one-time pass that Mathias has nearly completely automated. Even if a future version of gcc implements string constants in specific sections, the code isn't difficult to understand or maintain for older versions. > The post-build checking for section reference mismatches will help, > although that seems to have got itself turned off (what happened > there?). I think the modprobe message works well. What do you think missing? > Did anyone ask the gcc developers? Not to my knowledge. > I'd have thought that a function-wide > __attribute__((__string_section__(foo)) > wouldn't be a ton of work to implement. Maybe not. Could some future version of gcc move string constants in a function to a specific section marked in a manner similar to what Andrew described above? -- 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/
