From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127156 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2016 13:08:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 127145 invoked by uid 89); 14 Sep 2016 13:08:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:08:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F01B0C05681A; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-204-43.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.43]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8ED7x2R021753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:08:01 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u8ED7wsZ018795; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:07:58 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u8ED7u4W018794; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:07:56 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:08:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jeff Law Subject: Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag. Message-ID: <20160914130756.GP7282@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <512a967c-39c4-44f5-6f24-d75ef543979d@redhat.com> <20160629192130.GF8823@embecosm.com> <20160914130048.GC31794@embecosm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160914130048.GC31794@embecosm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00818.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:00:48PM +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote: > In an attempt to get this patch merged (as I still think that its > correct) I've investigated, and documented a little more about how I > think things currently work. I'm sure most people reading this will > already know this, but hopefully, if my understanding is wrong someone > can point it out. I wonder if user_defined_section_attribute instead shouldn't be moved into struct function and be handled as a per-function flag then. Jakub