Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Paul Mackerras <> | Date | Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:07:58 +1000 (EST) | Subject | Re: [Ltp-coverage] 2.5.67-gcov and 2.4.20-gcov |
| |
=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=81=F6rn?= Engel writes:
> The bit in arch/ppc/kernel/entry.S was necessary for me to compile > this for a ppc 405gp based system, gcov would grow the kernel beyond > the relative jump distance for "bnel syscall_trace". > > Paulus, Ben, is the relative jump a wanted optimization or unclean > code that went unnoticed so far? IOW should this go into mainline or > remain part of the gcov patch?
What's unclean about bnel?
I think ret_from_fork would be better like this:
.globl ret_from_fork ret_from_fork: bl schedule_tail lwz r0,TASK_PTRACE(r2) andi. r0,r0,PT_TRACESYS beq+ ret_from_except bl syscall_trace b ret_from_except
Unless of course you have bloated the kernel beyond 32MB, but then we would be in all sorts of difficulties.
> +.section ".ctors","aw" > +.globl __CTOR_LIST__ > +.type __CTOR_LIST__,@object > +__CTOR_LIST__: > +.section ".dtors","aw" > +.globl __DTOR_LIST__ > +.type __DTOR_LIST__,@object > +__DTOR_LIST__:
Can't you do this in arch/ppc/vmlinux.lds using PROVIDE() instead of making the same change to each of the head*.S files?
Paul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |