Re: [Ltp-coverage] 2.5.67-gcov and 2.4.20-gcov

From: Paul Mackerras (
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 18:07:58 EST

=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=81=F6rn?= Engel writes:

> The bit in arch/ppc/kernel/entry.S was necessary for me to compile
> this for a ppc 405gp based system, gcov would grow the kernel beyond
> the relative jump distance for "bnel syscall_trace".
> Paulus, Ben, is the relative jump a wanted optimization or unclean
> code that went unnoticed so far? IOW should this go into mainline or
> remain part of the gcov patch?

What's unclean about bnel?

I think ret_from_fork would be better like this:

        .globl ret_from_fork
        bl schedule_tail
        lwz r0,TASK_PTRACE(r2)
        andi. r0,r0,PT_TRACESYS
        beq+ ret_from_except
        bl syscall_trace
        b ret_from_except

Unless of course you have bloated the kernel beyond 32MB, but then we
would be in all sorts of difficulties.

> +.section ".ctors","aw"
> +.globl __CTOR_LIST__
> +.type __CTOR_LIST__,@object
> +__CTOR_LIST__:
> +.section ".dtors","aw"
> +.globl __DTOR_LIST__
> +.type __DTOR_LIST__,@object
> +__DTOR_LIST__:

Can't you do this in arch/ppc/ using PROVIDE() instead of
making the same change to each of the head*.S files?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:23 EST