On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:19:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I have an objection against this approach: > > Our __*init*/__*exit* annotations are already a constant source of bugs, > and adding more pifalls (e.g. forgotten removal of _i()/_e() when a > function is no longer __*init*/__*exit*) doesn't sound like a good plan. > > Shouldn't it be possible to automatically determine where to put the > strings? I don't know enough gcc/ld voodoo for being able to tell > whether it is currently possible, and if yes how, but doing it > automatically sounds like the only solution that wouldn't result in an > unmaintainable mess.
gcc tends to place data such as strings or jump tables generated from switches not into a place were it would be easily discardable. The latter is the reason that on MIPS we can't discard __exit functions at all - a switch table in .rodata might be referencing discarded code in .exit.text which makes ld fail. When I discussed this with some gcc people a while ago nobody really had a good suggestion to solve this. Ralf - 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/
