Re: [PATCH] XBUG(comment) BUG enhancement

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Fri May 24 2002 - 02:19:51 EST


In message <20020524024906.A1547@redhat.com> you write:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 03:24:30PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > __asm__ __volatile__( "ud2\n" \
> > - "\t.word %c0\n" \
> > + "\t.long %c0\n" \
> > "\t.long %c1\n" \
> > - : : "i" (__LINE__), "i" (__FILE__))
> > + : : "i" (__stringify(__LINE__)), "i" (__FILE__))
>
> This part I can't agree with: changing the line number to a string
> results in excess pollution of the data segment with useless strings
> that are frequently duplicates. Why not leave it as a number?

To unify the trap handler to handle both cases. If you really think
this is unacceptable bloat, please measure the difference, then use
line number zero or something for XBUG and place the comment string at
in a third .long.

But I was lazy, and this was tested...
Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 31 2002 - 22:00:12 EST