https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #24 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f5a9a00e3ab1fe96142f304cfbcf3f63b15f326
commit r14-8395-g0f5a9a00e3ab1fe96142f304cfbcf3f63b15f326
Author: Jan Hubicka
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 56970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56970=edit
Patch I am testing
Hi,
this adds -falign-all-functions parameter. It still look like more reasonable
(and backward
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Just to clarify, the case where this causes us problems is (indeed on Aarch64)
with option -fpatchable-function-entry (and NOT necessarily -flive-patching).
But I agree that a separate orthogonal option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #21 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
> >
> > Live patching (user-space) doesn't depend on any particular alignment of
> > functions, on x86-64 at least. (The plan for other architectures wouldn't
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Live patching (user-space) doesn't depend on any particular alignment of
> functions, on x86-64 at least. (The plan for other architectures wouldn't
> need
> any specific alignment either). Note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #19 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #18)
> Reading all the discussion again, I am leaning towards -falign-all-functions
> + documentation update explaining that -falign-functions/-falign-loops are
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Another option would be to add another number to -falign-functions,
@itemx -falign-functions=@var{n}:@var{m}:@var{n2}:@var{m2}:@var{n3}
where 'n3' applies unconditionally and defaults to a target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #14 from Mark Rutland ---
> Patch posted before, but seems like not everybody agree:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603049.html
FWIW, from the arm64 kernel side all we need is a reliable mechanism to align
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #13 from Kito Cheng ---
Patch posted before, but seems like not everybody agree:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603049.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #11 from Mark Rutland ---
Further, at `-O1` and above GCC seems to silently drop the alignment of any
implementation of abort(), apparently implicitly marking it as cold.
I assume that may be true for other special functions.
For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Branko Drevensek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||branko.drevensek at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
Koen Zandberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koen.zandberg at inria dot fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
My comment was about -finline-*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88345
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, I do mean -falign-functions, sorry. I both misread and mistyped -finline-
as -falign-.
I do think that when a user specifies -falign-functions=N on the command line
with any optimization option it's
20 matches
Mail list logo
