From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 120103 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2016 20:09:52 -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 120092 invoked by uid 89); 16 Nov 2016 20:09:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=sk:bschmid, bschmidt@redhat.com, U*bschmidt, bschmidtredhatcom X-HELO: mail-wm0-f46.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f46.google.com) (74.125.82.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:09:41 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id a197so263381098wmd.0 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:09:41 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=wSojK28xMfLE2BhJC9Wt/EJYwyAJFpc99rhT+5ib67g=; b=MT42cSHRDYwxwEw1Qet/UxzXaoFNkp0XiBjpZVLL8im8jbM8e4rovIqJIyRLSRJ81Z kaPmoYspsXltLIKIz7b+A2P8c+hpV+1ru3/mYkx10TaeFBLm/tinc1+yVZ3GSB0+61RT 2ZPEKEEGMt/mEicqhMMIi54y3ldZn7CRxDV7ayVNpjEfSs7XjC+45SHxg4o/coNF87Jh U8sm2jFKdLVfxEjATTznHf+o5SqQnCFxHiPm2+f1iv3RfsWM233bOEJCb1PkCulG1fDW wt10rkNoew/Hi2dmT11499AyKp9pHU/HeGeIJ4kMpssh+U+BeEQl4i2PZ3K7NhtPSKaR tsfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngve6yhVJq8H1Kx/kTEE3mXqx4Uf9pZ4HfaosQb8RwbfVl/Wk7XhwzTU6dZgaoKAMFA== X-Received: by 10.28.126.11 with SMTP id z11mr13087706wmc.87.1479326979267; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:09:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (host86-135-139-198.range86-135.btcentralplus.com. [86.135.139.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j1sm23549269wjm.26.2016.11.16.12.09.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:09:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew Burgess To: Bernd Schmidt Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jeff Law , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcc: Remove unneeded global flag. Message-ID: <20161116200930.GG5975@embecosm.com> References: <512a967c-39c4-44f5-6f24-d75ef543979d@redhat.com> <20160629192130.GF8823@embecosm.com> <20160914130048.GC31794@embecosm.com> <03bef940-2b86-af7d-d2d2-b96b8283596f@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <03bef940-2b86-af7d-d2d2-b96b8283596f@redhat.com> X-Editor: GNU Emacs [ http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs ] User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg01703.txt.bz2 * Bernd Schmidt [2016-11-03 13:01:32 +0100]: > On 09/14/2016 03:00 PM, 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. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc/bb-reorder.c: Remove 'toplev.h' include. > > (pass_partition_blocks::gate): No longer check > > user_defined_section_attribute, instead check the function decl > > for a section attribute. > > * gcc/c-family/c-common.c (handle_section_attribute): No longer > > set user_defined_section_attribute. > > * gcc/final.c (rest_of_handle_final): Likewise. > > * gcc/toplev.c: Remove definition of user_defined_section_attribute. > > * gcc/toplev.h: Remove declaration of > > user_defined_section_attribute. > > > > gcc/testsuiteChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-1.c: New file. > > * gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-2.c: New file. > > * gcc.dg/tree-prof/section-attr-3.c: New file. > > I think the explanation is perfectly reasonable and the patch looks good, > except: > > > +__attribute__((noinline)) > > Add noclone to all of these as well. Thanks. Considering Jeff said, I'm thinking about it, and you've said yes, and given Jeff's not got back, I'm considering this patch approved (with the fix you suggest). My only remaining concern is the new tests, I've tried to restrict them to targets that I suspect they'll pass on with: /* { dg-final-use { scan-assembler "\.section\[\t \]*\.text\.unlikely\[\\n\\r\]+\[\t \]*\.size\[\t \]*foo\.cold\.0" { target *-*-linux* *-*-gnu* } } } */ but I'm still nervous that I'm going to introduce test failures. Is there any advice / guidance I should follow before I commit, or are folk pretty relaxed so long as I've made a reasonable effort? Thanks, Andrew