On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:34:37AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 01/03/17 11:26, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > However, writing some more documentation and being asked for clarity, > > I found it more depicting to talk about the function entry point than > > about the prologue. Also, this is about generic instrumentation, and it > > surely involves NOPs. > > > > So, hereby I'd like to start a small poll for a good name for this feature. > > Anyone with a better idea please speak up now. Otherwise I'll just > > s/prolog/prologue/g. > > Hmm, I'd prefer the bike shed to be green :-) > > How about --fpatchable-function-entry=<size-spec>? > IMHO qualifies as "better". And green is best anyway :-]
> > I've made another improvement which makes the code even more robust now. > > +DEF_TARGET_INSN (nop, (void)) > > In gcc/target-insns.def. This way I can easily check whether there is a > > (define_insn "nop" ...) in the target md. Currently, all CPUs have it, but > > who knows. > > The mid-end already has direct calls to gen_nop with no guards on the > pattern existing, So the compiler won't build without a NOP pattern. Richard told me "don't do that", and we found the DEF_TARGET_INSN. So far I can see gen_nop only in target specifics and in cfgrtl.c -- admittedly I don't know what that does. So the v6 code is basically OK? Names better than -fpatchable-function-entry anyone? Torsten