Re: [PATCH 8/9] tracing: recordmcount.pl We won't use weakfunction as reference, remove the check

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 15:04 +0800, Li Hong wrote:
> >From 4433c78ca3c0319fd75d1fd6d64929fa101e38a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Li Hong <lihong.hi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:25:39 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] tracing: recordmcount.pl We won't use weak function as reference, remove the check
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li Hong <lihong.hi@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/recordmcount.pl b/scripts/recordmcount.pl
> index 490b4cd..867c24a 100755
> --- a/scripts/recordmcount.pl
> +++ b/scripts/recordmcount.pl
> @@ -352,17 +352,6 @@ sub update_funcs
>  {
>      return unless ($ref_func and @offsets);
>  
> -    # A section only had a weak function, to represent it.
> -    # Unfortunately, a weak function may be overwritten by another
> -    # function of the same name, making all these offsets incorrect.
> -    # To be safe, we simply print a warning and bail.
> -    if (defined $weak{$ref_func}) {
> -	print STDERR
> -	    "$inputfile: WARNING: referencing weak function" .
> -	    " $ref_func for mcount\n";
> -	return;
> -    }
> -

I consider this a sanity check. It may be triggered if someone modifies
the rest of the script and somehow a weak function gets through. I'd
like to keep it. It does not hurt to have it. Maybe we should make it
"die" instead of just returning.

-- Steve

>      # is this function static? If so, note this fact.
>      if (defined $locals{$ref_func}) {
>  

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/