Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755820AbZJVVbR (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:31:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753151AbZJVVbR (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:31:17 -0400 Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com ([12.108.191.235]:8461 "EHLO mail3.caviumnetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752731AbZJVVbQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:31:16 -0400 From: Adam Nemet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19168.52948.22223.757259@ropi.home> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:29:56 -0700 To: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: David Daney , wuzhangjin@gmail.com, Richard Sandiford , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ralf Baechle , Nicholas Mc Guire Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 4/9] tracing: add static function tracer support for MIPS In-Reply-To: <1256244726.20866.802.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> References: <028867b99ec532b84963a35e7d552becc783cafc.1256135456.git.wuzhangjin@gmail.com> <2f73eae542c47ac5bbb9f7280e6c0271d193e90d.1256135456.git.wuzhangjin@gmail.com> <3f0d3515f74a58f4cfd11e61b62a129fdc21e3a7.1256135456.git.wuzhangjin@gmail.com> <1256138686.18347.3039.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1256233679.23653.7.camel@falcon> <4AE0A5BE.8000601@caviumnetworks.com> <19168.49354.525249.654494@ropi.home> <1256244726.20866.802.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.9 under Emacs 23.0.93.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2009 21:29:56.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD22ED90:01CA535E] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 888 Lines: 24 Steven Rostedt writes: > On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 13:30 -0700, Adam Nemet wrote: > > Also note that for functions invoked via tail call you won't get an exit > > event. E.g. if bar is tail-called from foo: > > > > foo entered > > bar entered > > foo/bar exited > > > > However, this is not MIPS-specific and you can always disable tail calls > > with -fno-optimize-sibling-calls. > > The question is, would bar have a _mcount call? So far, we have not had > any issues with this on either x86 nor PPC. Yes, bar will have an _mcount call. The difference is that bar will return to foo's caller directly rather than to foo first. Adam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/