Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddh...@gotplt.org> writes:
> On 2025-07-08 18:07, Sam James wrote:
>>> OK in principle, but please allow some time for distro maintainers
>>> (CC'd) to voice their opinion.
>> It looks good to me and I plan on us using it. I'd like opinions
>> from
>> one other group first before it goes in if possible though, as our
>> perspective is different from others (e.g. we don't have to worry about
>> old enterprise deployments).
>
> Why not just switch over unconditionally? __fentry__ seems like a
> better alternative to mcount overall and it has been around long
> enough that even older deployments should be relatively unaffected.
I think if we do that, we'll need a target tuple check for glibc, as
musl doesn't support fentry at a glance. Maybe we should have that
anyway though.
Looks like in glibc, it goes back to:
commit d22e4cc9397ed41534c9422d0b0ffef8c77bfa53
Author: Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com>
AuthorDate: Sat Aug 7 21:24:05 2010 -0700
Commit: Ulrich Drepper <drep...@redhat.com>
CommitDate: Sat Aug 7 21:24:05 2010 -0700
x86: Add support for frame pointer less mcount
.. which means >=glibc-2.19.
