Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-08-01 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Aug 01 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Do you know a reliable way of checking whether target can issue nops in > simple code? Try inspecting one of the rtl dumps. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-08-01 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Aug 01 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >>> I don't see an easy way to correctly differentiate between "attribute" >>> nops and "bundle" nops, so XFAILing

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-08-01 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Aug 01 2017, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> I don't see an easy way to correctly differentiate between "attribute" >> nops and "bundle" nops, so XFAILing these tests on ia64 seems like a >> valid approach. > > Make sense, given that

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-08-01 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > I don't see an easy way to correctly differentiate between "attribute" > nops and "bundle" nops, so XFAILing these tests on ia64 seems like a > valid approach. Make sense, given that the use of Itanium has gone done drastically. Gerald

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-31 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
On Jul 26, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Jul 26 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >>> On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote: >>> diff --git

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-26 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Jul 26 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote: >> >> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c >> >

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-26 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:16:25PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c > > b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-26 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Jul 07 2017, Torsten Duwe wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c > b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/patchable_function_entry-decl.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000..8514b10e820 > --- /dev/null > +++

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-25 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:12:00AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > > > SuSe/Novell choose to do its assignments per engineer, not for the whole > > company, so I don't think you are covered as is. > > Torsten, any update on which way you are going to handle copyright assignment > -- apply for

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-25 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:12:00AM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > I confirmed that bootstrap and reg test on x86_64-linux-gnu and > aarch64-linux-gnu are OK. Thanks a lot! > Torsten, any update on which way you are going to handle copyright assignment > -- apply for a new one or have one of

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-25 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > >> On Jul 20, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:58:06PM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-20 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:58:06PM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote: >>> >>> What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch? >> >> Torsten, if

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-20 Thread Torsten Duwe
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 01:58:06PM +0300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch? > > Torsten, if you prefer I can commit your patch (after bootstrap and a regtest > on

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-20 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch? > > Torsten > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 02:57:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 06/07/17 15:03, Torsten Duwe wrote: >> +#if

Re: [PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-17 Thread Torsten Duwe
What is the next step now? Is anybody going to commit that patch? Torsten On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 02:57:55PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 06/07/17 15:03, Torsten Duwe wrote: > +#if TARGET_HAVE_NAMED_SECTIONS No, this is a hook. You need to test

[PATCH v12] add -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M option

2017-07-07 Thread Torsten Duwe
Change since v11: < +#if TARGET_HAVE_NAMED_SECTIONS > + if (record_p && targetm_common.have_named_sections) (plus > +#include "common/common-target.h" ) Torsten gcc/c-family/ChangeLog 2017-07-07 Torsten Duwe * c-attribs.c (c_common_attribute_table): Add