On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> >> >> +/* Output a funtion with a call and return thunk for indirect branch.
>> >> >> + If BND_P is true, the BND prefix is needed. If REGNO != -1, the
>> >> >> + function address is in REGNO. Otherwise, the function address is
>> >> >> + on the top of stack. */
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +static void
>> >> >> +output_indirect_thunk_function (bool need_bnd_p, int regno)
>> >> >> +{
>> >> >> + char name[32];
>> >> >> + tree decl;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + /* Create __x86_indirect_thunk/__x86_indirect_thunk_bnd. */
>> >> >> + indirect_thunk_name (name, regno, need_bnd_p);
>> >> >> + decl = build_decl (BUILTINS_LOCATION, FUNCTION_DECL,
>> >> >> + get_identifier (name),
>> >> >> + build_function_type_list (void_type_node,
>> >> >> NULL_TREE));
>> >> >> + DECL_RESULT (decl) = build_decl (BUILTINS_LOCATION, RESULT_DECL,
>> >> >> + NULL_TREE, void_type_node);
>> >> >> + TREE_PUBLIC (decl) = 1;
>> >> >> + TREE_STATIC (decl) = 1;
>> >> >> + DECL_IGNORED_P (decl) = 1;
>> >> >
>> >> > DECL_ARTIFICIAL as well?
>> >>
>> >> This is done exactly the same way as PIC thunk. I don't think we
>> >> should change it here.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why do you need to output asm visibility directives by hand when you
>> >> > create
>> >> > symbol for the function anyway?
>> >>
>> >> This is done exactly the same way as PIC thunk. I don't think we
>> >> should change it here.
>> >
>> > I see, it is pretty ancient code. Perhaps you can at least commonize
>> > the uglness so we don't duplicate the ifdefs for MACHO?
>>
>> I don't think we should such surgery at such late stage. I prefer to
>> keep it for later cleanup.
>
> OK, lets keep it as it is and clean up next stage1.
>
>
The new set of patches are at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01200.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01197.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01198.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01201.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01199.html
--
H.J.
