| Message ID | 1428886467-4969-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 17:54:27 -0700 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > > gcc 5 supports a new -mcount-record option to generate ftrace > tables directly. This avoids the need to run record_mcount > manually. > > Use this option when available. > > It also has a -mcount-nop option to generate the mcount calls > as nops. So far that is not implemented, but it could be used > to optimize patching at boot up. Interesting. But I can't accept this until I can test it. I don't have the time to build gcc from scratch, and currently none of my boxes have a gcc 5 install. I wonder who's responsible for https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ If they can add a i386/x86_64 build for gcc5 I'll be happy to download it and test this patch. Thanks, -- Steve > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > --- > scripts/Makefile.build | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build > index 01df30a..f258e9b 100644 > --- a/scripts/Makefile.build > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build > @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ cmd_modversions = \ > fi; > endif > > +# gcc 5 supports generating the mcount tables directly > +ifneq ($(call cc-option,-mrecord-mcount,y),y) > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mrecord-mcount > +else > +# else do it all manually > ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD > ifdef BUILD_C_RECORDMCOUNT > ifeq ("$(origin RECORDMCOUNT_WARN)", "command line") > @@ -240,6 +245,7 @@ cmd_record_mcount = \ > $(sub_cmd_record_mcount) \ > fi; > endif > +endif > > define rule_cc_o_c > $(call echo-cmd,checksrc) $(cmd_checksrc) \ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Interesting. But I can't accept this until I can test it. I don't have AFAIK that's a unique policy. I don't think any other maintainer operates this way. > I wonder who's responsible for > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > If they can add a i386/x86_64 build for gcc5 I'll be happy to download > it and test this patch. That doesn't make any sense. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:55:08 -0700 Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Interesting. But I can't accept this until I can test it. I don't have > > AFAIK that's a unique policy. I don't think any other maintainer operates > this way. Um, really? Other maintainers don't test patches that they maintain? This isn't like hardware that I don't have. This could certainly affect people if it breaks, and I will be responsible to fix it. I'm not going to do that until I have a setup where I can test things that break. > > > I wonder who's responsible for > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > > If they can add a i386/x86_64 build for gcc5 I'll be happy to download > > it and test this patch. > > That doesn't make any sense. > What, adding gcc5 to the crosstools suite? Why not? -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > I wonder who's responsible for > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > > > > If they can add a i386/x86_64 build for gcc5 I'll be happy to download > > > it and test this patch. > > > > That doesn't make any sense. > > > > What, adding gcc5 to the crosstools suite? Why not? Making patches dependent on someone else building compilers for you. -Andi
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:54:12 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > > > > I wonder who's responsible for > > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > > > > > > If they can add a i386/x86_64 build for gcc5 I'll be happy to download > > > > it and test this patch. > > > > > > That doesn't make any sense. > > > > > > > What, adding gcc5 to the crosstools suite? Why not? > > Making patches dependent on someone else building compilers for you. > Well, until it's in the distro, I don't currently have time to build the compiler. Thus, it will have to wait till one's already available, or I get around to it. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes: > I wonder who's responsible for > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > If they can add a i386/x86_64 build for gcc5 I'll be happy to download > it and test this patch. Found this: "For any questions don't hesitate to contact me at tony (at) bake your noodle . com" https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:19:58 +0300 Kalle Valo <kvalo@adurom.com> wrote: > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes: > > > I wonder who's responsible for > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/ > > > > If they can add a i386/x86_64 build for gcc5 I'll be happy to download > > it and test this patch. > > Found this: > > "For any questions don't hesitate to contact me at tony (at) bake your > noodle . com" > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ > Thanks for the pointer. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build index 01df30a..f258e9b 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.build +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@ cmd_modversions = \ fi; endif +# gcc 5 supports generating the mcount tables directly +ifneq ($(call cc-option,-mrecord-mcount,y),y) +KBUILD_CFLAGS += -mrecord-mcount +else +# else do it all manually ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD ifdef BUILD_C_RECORDMCOUNT ifeq ("$(origin RECORDMCOUNT_WARN)", "command line") @@ -240,6 +245,7 @@ cmd_record_mcount = \ $(sub_cmd_record_mcount) \ fi; endif +endif define rule_cc_o_c $(call echo-cmd,checksrc) $(cmd_checksrc) \