2015-10-07 19:27 GMT+03:00 Andi Kleen <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:54:42AM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >> On 10/06/2015 09:11 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > >> > But what's wrong with the GCC attribute mechanism? Surely GCC ought >> > to be able to generate the code, at least in the simple cases, and the >> > attribute already exists. The attribute and READ_ONCE_NOCHECK seem >> > like the least messy in the C code. >> >> The problem with 'no_sanitize_address' attribute is incompatibility with >> inlining. >> GCC can't inline function with that attribute into function without it. >> And the contrary is also true - GCC can't inline function without attribute >> into function with such attribute. >> >> Failure to inline always_inline function leads to build failure. > > So just don't do that? Don't set the attribute on functions marked inline. > Where do you see this anyways?
Besides that we can't set the attribute on functions that *call* inline functions. So we can't set it on get_wchan() because it calls __read_once_size(). > > -Andi -- 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/
