https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Naveen N Rao from comment #2) > I don't really have a preference, though I tend to agree that nops before > the local entry point aren't that useful. Even with the current approach, > not all functions have instructions at the GEP and for those, the nops are > being generated outside the function. We also won't have a separate GEP/LEP > with pcrel, so we won't need a separate option eventually. Thanks for the input! Looking forward to the comments from the others, especially Segher, David and Peter. (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1) > > > > As Segher's review comments in [2], to support "before NOPs" before global > > entry and "after NOPs" after global entry, > > Just to be perfectly clear here: the "after NOPs" need to come after local > entry > (which strictly speaking is of course after the global one as well, but I'm > being anal :) ). Oops, good catch, I meant to type "after local entry", thanks for the correction making it perfectly clear. :)
