public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/112980] 64-bit powerpc ELFv2 does not allow nops to be generated before function global entry point Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 03:48:51 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-112980-4-QXOxyDhKSw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-112980-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980 --- Comment #17 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #16) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #15) > > I agree, thanks for the comments! btw, I'm not fighting for the current > > implementation, just want to know more details why users are unable to make > > use of the current implementation, is it just due to its inefficiency (like > > the above sequence) or un-usability (unused at all). As your comments, I > > think it's due to the former (inefficiency)?! > > Okay. So, yeah, I _think_ that other way (with NOPs between GEP and LEP, > plus a jump around them) could be made to work with userspace live patching. > It would just be inefficient. But do note that that jump around was _not_ > part of the original way of -fpatchable-function-entry, so a change to > codegen > would have to have happened anyway to make that other way usable. And it > has the > (perhaps theoretical, who knows :) ) problem of not using the normal 8-byte > difference between GEP and LEP. > Thanks again for confirming this understanding! > I think your current proposal from comment #10 is the better from all > perspectives. Yeah, I agree. When reworking this support previously, comment #10 like implementation was considered as a better one but it's not finally made due to the concern that can break the assumption NOPs should be consecutive, based on all the inputs here I think it's time to "fix" it by just underscoring this special not-consecutive NOPs in documentation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-12 3:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-12-12 9:22 [Bug target/112980] New: " naveen at kernel dot org 2024-01-18 5:15 ` [Bug target/112980] " linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-18 9:44 ` naveen at kernel dot org 2024-01-18 13:36 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-01-19 2:06 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-19 16:27 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-20 9:05 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-25 13:31 ` naveen at kernel dot org 2024-04-01 7:30 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-01 14:03 ` giuliano.belinassi at gmail dot com 2024-04-02 8:21 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-02 8:24 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-04 18:24 ` giuliano.belinassi at gmail dot com 2024-04-09 3:02 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-09 12:59 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-10 2:14 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-11 12:37 ` matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-04-12 3:48 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2024-05-29 2:21 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-112980-4-QXOxyDhKSw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).