Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] scripts: Add sortextable to sort the kernel's exception table.

[David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>]

On 11/20/2011 03:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2011 14:37:44 David Daney wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/scripts/sortextable.c
> >
> > +/*
> > + * sortextable.c: Sort the kernel's exception table
> > + *
> > + * Copyright 2011 Cavium, Inc.
> > + *
> > + * Based on code taken from recortmcount.c which is:
> seems like it'd be nice if the duplicate helper funcs were placed in a common
> header file rather than copying&  pasting between them.
Yes, I may try to factor out some common code if we decide to move 
forward with the patch set.

> > +       switch (w2(ehdr->e_machine)) {
> > +       default:
> > +               fprintf(stderr, "unrecognized e_machine %d %s\n",
> > +                       w2(ehdr->e_machine), fname);
> > +               fail_file();
> > +               break;
> > +       case EM_386:
> > +       case EM_MIPS:
> > +       case EM_X86_64:
> > +               break;
> > +       }  /* end switch */
> unlike recordmcount, this file doesn't do anything arch specific.  so let's just
> delete this and be done.
Not really true at this point.  We don't know the size or layout of the 
architecture specific exception table entries, likewise for 
CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SORT_EXTABLE, we don't even know how to do the comparison.
I was trying to be a little conservative and only apply the build time 
sort to configurations that I could test.
David Daney