Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 10:47:49 -0400 From: "Alexander Sack" <pisymbol@gmail.com> To: "Bruce Evans" <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, David Christensen <davidch@broadcom.com> Subject: Re: Not All Symbols Present in a Loadable Kernel Module Message-ID: <3c0b01820805060747j79996b73n6cdb5fb87a368912@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080506164634.G10595@delplex.bde.org> References: <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819324F09D65FA@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <3c0b01820805021315i482fe0acg3e9238a2f412770e@mail.gmail.com> <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819324F09D6896@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <3c0b01820805030750k2fc389b0y500914c36069e6cf@mail.gmail.com> <5D267A3F22FD854F8F48B3D2B523819324F09D6A52@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20080505163249.GU18958@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <3c0b01820805051106k5faf368etec0851e65de109f8@mail.gmail.com> <20080506164634.G10595@delplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008, Alexander Sack wrote: > > For my own edification, unless you specifically mark a function > > inline, will gcc really optimize them out? That seems a little > > overboard unless there is some compiler option that says its okay to > > do that. I guess that would be very easy to test if you do as you > > say, just sock away the function address pointer somewhere and you > > should be okay... > > > > This is a regression in gcc-4. The -O option says it. -O implies > -funit-at-a-time, which allows inlining of functions irrespective of > their order within a file and implies -finline-functions-called-once. > Thus even plain -O removes most static functions that are only called > once. Thanks Bruce, I did some digging and all i can say is YIKES. Got to be careful with gcc optimizations. I suppose to be safe, bge could be compiled with -fno-inline-funcations-called-once to be safe. > This doesn't seem to be the problem with the bce functions, since some > of the missing ones are called more than once. Again, I would assume if you look at the symbols of the generated binary you should be able to figure out if you have a compiler issue or a debugger one! -aps
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3c0b01820805060747j79996b73n6cdb5fb87a368912>