* David Woodhouse: > On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 16:36 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> My fundamental problem with this patchkit is that it is 100% x86/x86_64 >> specific. >> >> ISTM we want a target independent mechanism (ie, new standard patterns, >> options, etc) then an x86/x86_64 implementation using that target >> independent framework (ie, the actual implementation of those new >> standard patterns). > > From the kernel point of view, I'm not too worried about GCC internal > implementation details. What would be really useful to agree in short > order is the command-line options that invoke this behaviour, and the > ABI for the thunks.
Do you assume that you will eventually apply run-time patching to thunks (in case they aren't needed)?
