On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 16:00 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > 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
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
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
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 16:00 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
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
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 08:05 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, 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
On 26 March 2015 at 23:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
>
>> > 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
On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, 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
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 08:05 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause mini...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's
On 26 March 2015 at 23:15, Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
I'd have thought that a function-wide
__attribute__((__string_section__(foo))
wouldn't be a ton of work to implement.
Maybe not.
Could
On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause mini...@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
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> > 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
(adding g...@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
>
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 t high, although it will mess the
code up a
On 26 March 2015 at 18:53, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:37 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
>> On 26 March 2015 at 17:13, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
>> >> On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100,
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:37 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 17:13, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
> >> On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> AFAIU, functions only
On 26 March 2015 at 17:13, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
>> On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
>> >
>> >> AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
>> >> the linker store
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
> On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
> >
> >> AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
> >> the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
> >>
On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
be reclaimed once initialization is complete. Is that correct?
The
On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
be reclaimed once initialization is complete. Is that correct?
The
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
be reclaimed
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:37 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
On 26 March 2015 at 17:13, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
AFAIU, functions only used
On 26 March 2015 at 17:13, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
the linker store them
(adding g...@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 mini...@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
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
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
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause mini...@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 t high, although it will
On 26 March 2015 at 18:53, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:37 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
On 26 March 2015 at 17:13, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote:
On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
> the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
> be reclaimed once initialization is complete. Is that correct?
>
> The corresponding
Hello everyone,
AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
be reclaimed once initialization is complete. Is that correct?
The corresponding tag for data is __initdata (section .init.data)
I started
Hello everyone,
AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
be reclaimed once initialization is complete. Is that correct?
The corresponding tag for data is __initdata (section .init.data)
I started
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote:
Hello everyone,
AFAIU, functions only used at system init are tagged __init to have
the linker store them in a separate .init.text section, so memory can
be reclaimed once initialization is complete. Is that correct?
The corresponding tag
30 matches
Mail list logo
