>
> I meant the new option might be named -fmin-function-alignment=
> rather than -falign-all-functions because of how it should
> override all other options.
I was also pondering about both names. -falign-all-functions has the
advantage that it is similar to all the other alignment flags that are
all called -falign-XXX
but both options are finte for me.
>
> Otherwise is there an updated patch to look at?
I will prepare one. So shall I drop the max-skip support for alignment
and rename the flag?
Honza
>
> Richard.
>
> > > -flimit-function-alignment should not have an effect on it
> > > and even very small functions should be aligned.
> >
> > I write that it is not affected by limit-function-alignment
> > @opindex falign-all-functions=@var{n}
> > @item -falign-all-functions
> > Specify minimal alignment for function entry. Unlike
> > @option{-falign-functions}
> > this alignment is applied also to all functions (even those considered
> > cold).
> > The alignment is also not affected by @option{-flimit-function-alignment}
> >
> > Because indeed that would break the atomicity of updates.
>
>
>
> > Honza
> > >
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > /* Handle a user-specified function alignment.
> > > > Note that we still need to align to DECL_ALIGN, as above,
> > > > because ASM_OUTPUT_MAX_SKIP_ALIGN might not do any alignment at
> > > > all. */
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
> > > Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> > > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
> >
>
> --
> Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
> Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
> GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
