From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753260Ab0BWSDL (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:03:11 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:48867 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752127Ab0BWSDJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:03:09 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=TmnEcBdXtfUA:10 a=7U3hwN5JcxgA:10 a=CwPc2XfKizsTsBQkqyQA:9 a=axfCjyS7r7rSqQ-nA74YSFOJgpIA:4 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.89.75 Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] ARM: ftrace: allow building without frame pointers From: Steven Rostedt Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org To: Rabin Vincent Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar , Abhishek Sagar , Uwe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= In-Reply-To: <20100223175807.GB5836@debian> References: <1266090518-31120-1-git-send-email-rabin@rab.in> <1266090518-31120-5-git-send-email-rabin@rab.in> <20100222190516.GJ5055@nowhere> <1266931113.19540.5.camel@frodo> <20100223171112.GC5357@nowhere> <20100223175807.GB5836@debian> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc. Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:03:05 -0500 Message-ID: <1266948185.24271.6079.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 23:28 +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote: > The easiest option to have a more obvious message than a linker error > would be to add something like this in entry-common.S: > > #if (__GNUC__ < 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 4)) \ > && !defined(OLD_MCOUNT) > #warning Ftrace on GCC < 4.4 requires frame pointers > #endif > > Messages like this are also present in other places in ARM (for example > arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c), so this wouldn't be this first. > > Note that the above message would help in all cases except the one where > someone builds the kernel with !fp and GCC 4.4+, and then builds a > module with an older GCC. That would still be only a linker error. I was going to recommend the #if above. But shouldn't it be a #error instead of a #warning? -- Steve