All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>,
	Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: String literals in __init functions
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1427407120.15849.34.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org>

(adding gcc@gcc.gnu.org)

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 14:40 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's
> > useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance
> > burden?
> 
> I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the
> code up a bit.

I think it's overall a pretty low cost one-time pass
that Mathias has nearly completely automated.

Even if a future version of gcc implements string
constants in specific sections, the code isn't
difficult to understand or maintain for older versions.

> The post-build checking for section reference mismatches will help,
> although that seems to have got itself turned off (what happened
> there?).

I think the modprobe message works well.
What do you think missing?

> Did anyone ask the gcc developers?

Not to my knowledge.

> I'd have thought that a function-wide
> 	__attribute__((__string_section__(foo))
> wouldn't be a ton of work to implement.

Maybe not.

Could some future version of gcc move string constants
in a function to a specific section marked in a manner
similar to what Andrew described above?



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: String literals in __init functions
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1427407120.15849.34.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org>

(adding gcc at gcc.gnu.org)

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 14:40 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's
> > useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance
> > burden?
> 
> I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the
> code up a bit.

I think it's overall a pretty low cost one-time pass
that Mathias has nearly completely automated.

Even if a future version of gcc implements string
constants in specific sections, the code isn't
difficult to understand or maintain for older versions.

> The post-build checking for section reference mismatches will help,
> although that seems to have got itself turned off (what happened
> there?).

I think the modprobe message works well.
What do you think missing?

> Did anyone ask the gcc developers?

Not to my knowledge.

> I'd have thought that a function-wide
> 	__attribute__((__string_section__(foo))
> wouldn't be a ton of work to implement.

Maybe not.

Could some future version of gcc move string constants
in a function to a specific section marked in a manner
similar to what Andrew described above?

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-26 21:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-25 17:56 String literals in __init functions Mason
2015-03-25 17:56 ` Mason
2015-03-25 18:01 ` Joe Perches
2015-03-25 18:01   ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 12:40   ` Mason
2015-03-26 12:40     ` Mason
2015-03-26 16:13     ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 16:13       ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 16:37       ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 16:37         ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 17:53         ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 17:53           ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 20:49           ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 20:49             ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-26 21:40             ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-26 21:40               ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-26 21:58               ` Joe Perches [this message]
2015-03-26 21:58                 ` Joe Perches
2015-03-26 22:15                 ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-26 22:15                   ` Andrew Morton
2015-03-27  7:16                   ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-27  7:16                     ` Mathias Krause
2015-04-02 16:00                 ` Joseph Myers
2015-04-02 16:00                   ` Joseph Myers
2015-04-02 16:23                   ` Joe Perches
2015-04-02 16:23                     ` Joe Perches
2015-03-27  7:05               ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-27  7:05                 ` Mathias Krause
2015-03-27  7:32                 ` Joe Perches
2015-03-27  7:32                   ` Joe Perches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1427407120.15849.34.camel@perches.com \
    --to=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=minipli@googlemail.com \
    --cc=slash.tmp@free.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.