> On Jan 3, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: >>> On Dec 31, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:20 PM Nadav Amit <na...@vmware.com> wrote: >>>> This is a revised version of optpolines (formerly named retpolines) for >>>> dynamic indirect branch promotion in order to reduce retpoline overheads >>>> [1]. >>> >>> Some of your changelogs still call them "relpolines". >>> >>> I have a crazy suggestion: maybe don't give them a cute name at all? >>> Where it's actually necessary to name them (like in a config option), >>> use a description like CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEVIRTUALIZATION or >>> CONFIG_PATCH_INDIRECT_CALLS or something. > > Cute or not, naming is important. > > If you want a description instead of a name, it will be a challenge to > describe it in 2-3 words. > > I have no idea what "dynamic devirtualization" means. > > "Patch indirect calls" doesn't fully describe it either (and could be > easily confused with static calls and some other approaches). > >> I’m totally fine with that (don’t turn me into a "marketing” guy). It was >> just a way to refer to the mechanism. I need more feedback about the more >> fundamental issues to go on. > > Naming isn't marketing. It's a real issue: it affects both usability > and code readability.
Well, allow me to be on the fence not this one. I look for the path of least resistance. I think it would be easiest if I first manage to make Josh’s static calls to be less intrusive. For that, I try to add in the GCC plugin an attribute to annotate the function pointers whose calls should be promoted. However, I don’t manage to get the declaration from the call instruction's rtx. If anyone has a pointer on how it can be done, that’s would be very helpful.
