On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:40:48PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > On 7/30/20 11:03 AM, pet...@infradead.org wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:41:43AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > One orc_entry is associated with each instruction in the object file, > > > but having the orc_entry contained by the instruction structure forces > > > architectures not implementing the orc subcommands to provide a dummy > > > definition of the orc_entry.
> I guess I forgot about the usecase of running objtool on vmlinux... Right, and LTO builds will even do ORC at that level. > On a kernel build for x86_64 defconfig, the difference in time seems to be > withing the noise. Good. > But I agree the proposed code is not ideal and on the other we've tried > avoiding #ifdef in the code. Ideally I'd have an empty orc_entry definition > when SUBCMD_ORC is not implemented. > > Would you have a suggested approach to do that? How ugly is having that: struct orc_entry { }; ?