Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 13:03:34 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest_dynamic.o
Message-ID: <20181217210334.GW25620@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <CAK8P3a2K1K21ePBFbApaTKPCk+=Bqj0LyWoK1MdFb1s9ZwjfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181217173900.ygifx7khwmzn2gv2@treble>
 <20181217180434.GS25620@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <20181217181638.dfexg6mkmbfyzfli@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181217181638.dfexg6mkmbfyzfli@treble>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > That seems weird. 
> > 
> > Are you sure it's not just because they are empty? AFAIK
> > gcc doesn't necessarily generate frame pointers for empty functions.
> 
> I suspected that it was because they're empty, however I didn't see this
> warning for other leaf functions.  The sancov plugin is presumably
> taking care of adding frame pointers where needed.  Also, adding

That would surprise me. 

> -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer didn't fix it.
> 
> And anyway I confirmed that it was fixed by removing __noclone.

So this is with a plugin?

Maybe the plugin does something wrong?

I thought this was just a standard build.

I'm not sure the problem is well enough understood yet
to really do anything.

Do you have a simple standalone test case to show the compiler behavior?


-Andi