> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> >> > What is the reason for using different names for return and indirect > >> >> > thunks at first place? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> These 2 thunks are identical. But one may want to provide an > >> >> alternate thunk only for > >> >> indirect branch and leaves return thunk alone. You can't do that if > >> >> both have the same > >> >> name. > >> > > >> > Hmm, OK, what is the benefit to have two different thunks? It is just > >> > safety precaution so we could adjust one without adjusting the other in > >> > future? > >> > > >> > >> That is correct. > > > > Hmm, I guess the patch is OK. Things are slightly more flexible this way and > > duplicating thunk is not terribly expensive. One can always link with > > non-comdat+ alias. > > > > That is true. OK to backport to GCC 7 after a few days?
OK. Honza > > Thanks. > > -- > H.J.
