All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] x86: use asm .macro instead of cpp #define in entry_32.S
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:11:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090210111154.GA7822@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4990D5F5.9030409@goop.org>


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hmm... I originally did the conversion because I had some .if trick in
>> SAVE_ALL which got removed later.  Even after the removal, it
>> generally looked like a good idea as x86_64 asm was primarily using
>> .macro too.  I do like being able to see the post-processing output of
>> cpp too but for assembler disassembling the output often seem to give
>> enough clue,
>
> That's assuming that the file assembles.  But if you're trying to assemble
> and the best error the assembler comes up with is "bad operand" on the line
> where you're using the macro, its extremely frustrating trying to work out
> where the problem actually lies.

Yeah, i had that experience with GAS usability with all the CFI restructuring
we did.

But it should be pretty rare that we come up with instructions that do not
assemble - and even rarer that we come up with a _lot_ of new instructions
that do not assemble. The trick i used was to remove bits of the macro to
hone in on the bad instruction/construct. Stone-age tool but works.

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-02-10 11:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-09 13:39 [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32 Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86: include correct %gs in a.out core dump Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 17:12   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86: math_emu info cleanup Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:42   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 13:45     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 13:52       ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86: fix math_emu register frame access Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 17:13   ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-09 23:40     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10  1:08     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 04/11] elf: add ELF_CORE_COPY_KERNEL_REGS() Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86: stackprotector.h misc update Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 06/11] stackprotector: update make rules Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86: no stack protector for vdso Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86: use asm .macro instead of cpp #define in entry_32.S Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 18:34   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-10  1:14     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10  1:18       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-10 11:11         ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86: add %gs accessors for x86_32 Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86: make lazy %gs optional on x86_32 Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 18:12   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-10  1:27     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10  1:51       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-09 13:39 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86: implement x86_32 stack protector Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 15:25   ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-10 15:39     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11  7:31       ` [PATCH x86#core/percpu] x86: fix x86_32 stack protector bugs Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 10:34         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:18           ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-09 13:55 ` [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32 Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 14:06   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 20:30     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10 13:56       ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:16         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 14:12   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10 13:54     ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:16       ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:20         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10 14:26           ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-11 10:57             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 11:18               ` [PATCH] stackprotector: fix multi-word cross-builds Ingo Molnar
2009-02-11 14:19                 ` Tejun Heo
2009-02-10 14:19       ` [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32 Ingo Molnar
2009-02-09 14:09 ` Brian Gerst
2009-02-09 14:15   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-10  1:36     ` Tejun Heo

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=20090210111154.GA7822@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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.