> Graham Stoney wrote:
> > Is there some other hack I could
> > use to get "ar" to work with initcall, like treating it as a C++ constructor
> > or using KEEP in the .lds file or something?
Jeff Garzik writes:
> If there is an easy way to hack the ld script such that ar pulls in
> initcall [other similar special sections], that would cut down on some
> errors, I would think.
I'm currently experimenting with 2.2.x, which doesn't have initcall. I haven't
seen any problem with other lost sections yet.
Looking at initcall the 2.3.x kernel, I can't see what would make it disappear.
Can anyone enlighten me on this please?
> The general thinking seems to be "your code shouldn't contain dead code
> anyway", so getting ar to work with initcall has a fairly low priority
> IMHO
Sure, but it's real hard to do for any arbitrary combination of CONFIG_*
options, where you end up with a maze of #ifdefs. It's also error prone, and
not everyone cares enough to bother. I'm trying to go one better than ar, and
get the linker to do it for us. It's non-trivial, but I'm getting there
(slowly)...
Regards,
Graham
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST