Re: [PATCH] Get rid of ASM_SIZE_DIRECTIVE (take 2)

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Wednesday 19 September 2012 14:32:06 Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 2:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 September 2012 14:57:17 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >> On 9/18/2012 1:06 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >>> That looks fine to me, though I am having second thoughts about the
> >>> exact choice of name. SYMBOL_SIZE doesn't really communicate that it
> >>> computes based on ., i.e. that the placement of the macro relative to
> >>> assembly code following the symbol is crucial. Good names are not
> >>> coming to mind just now.
> >> 
> >> Imply that it's computed: SYMBOL_CALC_SIZE?
> >> 
> >> Imply that it's positional: SYMBOL_HERE_SIZE?
> > 
> > if we aren't terribly set on names, i'd say let's just use the same
> > macros that the kernel already does since other projects have picked up
> > those
> 
> styles.
> 
> I think this would suggest just making the default END macro set the
> function size, using an explicit ".size", which brings us full-circle to
> the idea of just getting rid of ASM_SIZE_DIRECTIVE. :-)  However, the glibc
> use of END implies a function symbol, since most architectures include
> cfi_endproc in it, unlike the kernel use.

the kernel has ENDPROC which sets the type to func and sets .size, and there's 
no reason we couldn't add cfi stuff to it.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.