> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:53 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:38 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Richard Biener > >> >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>> Now my patch set has been checked into trunk. Here is a patch set > >> >>>> to move struct ix86_frame to machine_function on GCC 7, which is > >> >>>> needed to backport the patch set to GCC 7: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01239.html > >> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01240.html > >> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01241.html > >> >>>> > >> >>>> OK for gcc-7-branch? > >> >>> > >> >>> Yes, backporting is ok - please watch for possible fallout on trunk > >> >>> and make > >> >>> sure to adjust the backport accordingly. I plan to do GCC 7.3 RC1 on > >> >>> Wednesday now with the final release about a week later if no issue > >> >>> shows > >> >>> up. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Backport is blocked by > >> >> > >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83838 > >> >> > >> >> There are many test failures due to lack of comdat support in linker on > >> >> Solaris. > >> >> I can limit these tests to Linux. > >> > > >> > These are testcase issues and shouldn't block backport to GCC 7. > >> > >> It makes the option using thunks unusable though, right? Can you simply > >> make > >> them hidden on systems without comdat support? That duplicates them per TU > >> but at least the feature works. Or those systems should provide the > >> thunks via > >> libgcc. > >> > >> I agree we can followup with a fix for Solaris given lack of a public > >> testing machine. > > > > My memory is bit dim, but I am convinced I was fixing specific errors for > > comdats > > on Solaris, so I think the toolchain supports them in some sort, just is > > more > > restrictive/different from GNU implementation. > > > > Indeed, i think just producing sorry, unimplemented message is what we > > should do > > if we can't support retpoline on given target. > > I'm quite sure Solaris supports comdats, after all it invented ELF ;) > I've also seen > comdats in debugging early LTO issues. We might run into Solaris as > issues though.
:) My recollection is that the thunks in a comdat group needs to come in specific order after the entry symbol. Probably after - at some point I tried to move the before (for better code layout) and needed to retreat. Honza