>>> Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08.09.05 18:13:34 >>> >On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 05:57:55PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 4;\ >> >> + /*CFI_REL_OFFSET es, 0;*/\ >> >> pushl %ds; \ >> >> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 4;\ >> >> + /*CFI_REL_OFFSET ds, 0;*/\ >> > >> >Adding new commented out code never wins new friends. :) >> >> I know. But how would you indicate functionality belonging there but >> just not provided by the translating utilities. If that's really a >> problem, then I would need to teach the respective macros to ignore >> certain operands. > >Not provided by binutils or ?
Not provided for even by the spec; if it was just binutils missing them I'd have added this already. >> >> diff -Npru 2.6.13/include/asm-i386/dwarf2.h >> >[snip] >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_UNWIND_INFO >> >[snip] >> >> +#else >> >[snip] >> >> +#define CFI_STARTPROC ignore >> > >> >Why not just empty defines? >> >> Because they aren't function-like macros, but can have arguments >> (assembler syntax style); these arguments would then remain standalone >> on the line, and the assembly would fail. > >Take a look at >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112267822014301&w=2 > >I think we have slightly different approaches to the same problem, but I >found doing the cfi macros as cpp macros instead of gas macros was >cleaner & easier in the end. I don't like this better, I actually started from the x86-64 approach. Specifically, if working around the above mentioned commented-out-code problem should be necessary, then using assembler macros is likely to provide for an easier solution. Jan - 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/
