Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230109135828.879136-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20230109135828.879136-2-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <CANiq72kgmFYEO_EB_NxAF=S7VOf45KM7W3uwxxvftVErwfWzjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y77/qVgvaJidFpYt@FVFF77S0Q05N> <Y7/xKbOZYztcqz2b@FVFF77S0Q05N> <Y8FTXyKkI77nFIMJ@FVFF77S0Q05N>
In-Reply-To: <Y8FTXyKkI77nFIMJ@FVFF77S0Q05N>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Jan 2023 22:32:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CANiq72kEow5hBBfzSL7=yihgU1Xm=DiKqeV7A8p8h_qW_f18cg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Compiler attributes: GCC function alignment workarounds
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, ojeda@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, revest@chromium.org,
        robert.moore@intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, will@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 1:49 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>
> It turns out that was a red herring; GCC is actually implicitly marking the
> abort() function as cold, and as Linux's implementation happened to be marked
> as weak I assumed that was the culprit.

That and your previous message probably explains probably why I
couldn't reproduce it.

Thanks a lot for all the details -- the `cold` issue is reproducible
since gcc 4.6 at least: https://godbolt.org/z/PoxazzT9T

The `abort` case appears to happen since gcc 8.1.

Cheers,
Miguel