From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2683 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2013 21:11:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 2662 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2013 21:11:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:11:27 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1U3vEE-0005ve-MX from joseph_myers@mentor.com for libc-ports@sourceware.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:11:26 -0800 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:11:26 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:11:24 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U3vEB-0000ez-A4; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:11:23 +0000 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:11:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: Subject: Re: Add CFI information for MIPS assembly sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > However it should be possible to wrap the macros into other ones by using > a different name. This way the public macros would remain intact (yes, I > do have a concern as to the consistency of vs -- > they share a common ancestor, they provide abstract definitions that have > nothing to do specifically with userland or Linux kernel code and are both > meant to serve the same purpose, so the fewer divergences the better), > e.g. > > #define _LIBC_LEAF(symbol) \ > LEAF (symbol) \ > cfi_startproc > > (or perhaps call it _CFI_LEAF instead?). What do you think? Likewise the > others, and... I don't think having yet more macros for start and end of functions would be an improvement; it seems clearly better for functions to use END where possible, in particular, and that's in both sys/asm.h and sysdep.h (and while the definitions are such that the one in sysdep.h would take precedence if both are included, having different definitions of the same macro in those two headers would seem just too confusing). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com