On 01/03/17 13:32, Torsten Duwe wrote: > 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? > I haven't reviewed it yet. I'm not really planning to spend any more time on this until stage1 re-opens.
R. > Names better than -fpatchable-function-entry anyone? > > Torsten >
