On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 11:33 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:47:34PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > [...] > > > FWIW, I'm not keen about the format strings either, but they don't > > > constitute a performance hit beyond an additional parameter. It does > > > not need to actually get parsed at run time. > > > > "only" an additional parameter. The whole _point_ behind these markers > > is for them to have minimal effect! > > Agreed. The only alternative I recall seeing proposed was my own > cartesian-product macro suite that encodes parameter types into the > marker function/macro name itself. (Maybe some of that could be > hidden with gcc typeof() magic.) There appeared to be a consensus > that this was more undesirable. Do you agree? > >
C++ name mangling would be extremely useful here. Actually, why isn't the DWARF information for the functions sufficient? -- Nicholas Miell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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/
