DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6BBF320C48
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:34:20 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Alan Kao <nonerkao@gmail.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, Jim Wilson <jimw@sifive.com>,
        albert@sifive.com, mingo@redhat.com, patches@groups.riscv.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greentime@andestech.com,
        alankao@andestech.com, pombredanne@nexb.com, kito@andestech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv/ftrace: Add basic support
Message-ID: <20171212193420.3ba4e6d9@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20171212070758.GA26787@1a3c108b4593>
References: <20171207023110.2622-1-alankao@andestech.com>
        <mhng-2ff6fcb7-db72-482b-b70b-c925ae43c220@palmer-si-x1c4>
        <20171212070758.GA26787@1a3c108b4593>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1347
Lines: 31

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:08:00 +0800
Alan Kao <nonerkao@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It's not a big deal, though -- we can fix these later.  The more interesting
> > thing here is that this code means our `-pg` stuff is now part of the GCC
> > ABI, which is something I'd never though of before.  I've added Jim, our GCC
> > guy.
> > 
> > Jim: do you mind checking to make sure the GCC profiling support is sane?
> > Specifically, I'm thinking:
> > 
> > * Are there any profiling features we don't support that would require an
> > ABI break?
> > * Is there a way to add future ISA extensions without breaking the ABI?
> > * Should we document this as part of the ELF psABI specification?
> > 
> > Even though this isn't user-visible as far an Linux is concerned, it'd be a
> > bit of a pain to have to break this ABI because we did something brain-dead.
> > Since there's a bit of time before 7.3.0, I think it'd be OK to consider
> > breaking the profiling ABI if there's a good reason.
> >   
> 
> As far as I can tell, the `-pg` flag only inserts the _mcount call after every 
> valid function prologue and seems breaking no existing ABI. But indeed
> it would be good if compiler guys can take a look at the gcc profiling
> features.

This is an interesting discussion, although I'm a bit confused. What
ABI are you worried about breaking?

-- Steve