Re: [PATCH 55/74] lto, workaround: Add workaround for initcallreordering

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 19.08.12 at 17:01, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 09:46:04AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 08/19/12 5:05 AM >>>
>> >Work around a LTO gcc problem: when there is no reference to a variable
>> >in a module it will be moved to the end of the program. This causes
>> >reordering of initcalls which the kernel does not like.
>> >Add a dummy reference function to avoid this. The function is
>> >deleted by the linker.
>> 
>> This is not even true on x86, not to speak of generally.
> 
> Why is it not true ? 
> 
> __initcall is only defined for !MODULE and there __exit discards.

__exit, on x86 and perhaps other arches, causes the code
to be discarded at runtime only.

>> >+#ifdef CONFIG_LTO
>> >+/* Work around a LTO gcc problem: when there is no reference to a variable
>> >+ * in a module it will be moved to the end of the program. This causes
>> >+ * reordering of initcalls which the kernel does not like.
>> >+ * Add a dummy reference function to avoid this. The function is 
>> >+ * deleted by the linker.
>> >+ */
>> >+#define LTO_REFERENCE_INITCALL(x) \
>> >+    ; /* yes this is needed */            \
>> >+    static __used __exit void *reference_##x(void)     \
>> 
>> Why not put it into e.g. section .discard.text? That could be expected to be
>> discarded by the linker without being arch dependent, as long as all arches
>> use DISCARDS in their linker script.
> 
> 
> That's what __exit does, doesn't it?

No - see above. Using .discard.* enforces the discarding at link
time.

Jan

--
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/