From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753337AbbCZV6r (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:58:47 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0024.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.24]:38405 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752435AbbCZV6p (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:58:45 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2692:2693:2740:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3865:3866:3867:3870:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:6119:6261:7903:10004:10400:10848:10967:11026:11232:11658:11914:12043:12517:12519:12740:13069:13095:13149:13230:13311:13357:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: nut50_11f5f264c1b5f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2576 Message-ID: <1427407120.15849.34.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: String literals in __init functions From: Joe Perches To: Andrew Morton , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Mathias Krause , Mason , Linux ARM , LKML , Ingo Molnar Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> References: <5512F6C6.1020304@free.fr> <1427306517.2717.0.camel@perches.com> <5513FE2F.3040306@free.fr> <1427386390.15849.13.camel@perches.com> <1427392393.15849.16.camel@perches.com> <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 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? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 Subject: String literals in __init functions In-Reply-To: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> References: <5512F6C6.1020304@free.fr> <1427306517.2717.0.camel@perches.com> <5513FE2F.3040306@free.fr> <1427386390.15849.13.camel@perches.com> <1427392393.15849.16.camel@perches.com> <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: <1427407120.15849.34.camel@perches.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.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 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?