[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 30/34] xen: Add missing includes on different files
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 18:58 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > On 03/28/2014 09:59 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 17:47 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > >> On 03/27/2014 05:39 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 17:30 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > >>>> On 03/27/2014 05:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 16:55 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > >>>>>> This was spotted by -Wmissing-prototypes, which we can't enable > >>>>>> because there > >>>>>> is exported function for assembly. I'm not sure if we need to add a > >>>>>> prototype > >>>>>> for them. > >>>>> > >>>>> What exactly is the issue here? > >>>> > >>>> There a bunch of functions (see below for ARM) where the prototype is > >>>> not defined before. Mainly because theses functions are used by the > >>>> assembly code so we don't need to give a prototype. > >>>> > >>>> do_trap_* > >>>> start_xen > >>>> start_secondary > >>>> leave_hypervisor_tail > >>> > >>> Is that all of them? Although their prototypes are useless there are few > >>> enough of them that the benefit of being able to turn on > >>> Wmissing-prototypes might make it worth it. > >> > >> From the common code there is 7 others: > >> > >> core_parking_helper and get_cur_idle_nums (both of them are used on C > >> code but never defined in an header. I was lazy and I didn't write a > >> patch). > >> > >> __qdivrem > >> __divdi3 > >> __umoddi3 > >> __moddi3 > >> __ldivmod_helper > > > > Still not awful I guess. > > > > Several of these are essentially library functions provided for the > > compiler to emit calls to, I wonder if there is some compiler header > > which we should be including which would prototype them. Probably not, > > worth a look though. > > These functions are not used by x86 (because of the if BITS_PER_LONG == > 32), and on ARM we provide eabi_* helpers. Not sure I follow, what are you concluding there? > > The compiler could see a call from C code to a function whose prototype > > was marked with "called_from_asm_only". > > I'm afraid there is no __attribute__ feature for a such thing. One > solution could be introduce mismatch section as Linux (e.g: functions > called from assembly are in a specific section). _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |