From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74037 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2019 13:40:10 -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 74029 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jul 2019 13:40:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit 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; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 13:40:08 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40C86308792B; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:39:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD4CD702D0; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:39:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x62Ddd7c008391; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:39:39 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x62DdZZg008389; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:39:35 +0200 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 13:40:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Ilya Leoshkevich Cc: Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , krebbel@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc Message-ID: <20190702133935.GN815@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20190702085154.26981-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> <20190702130216.GI18316@gate.crashing.org> <20190702131957.GJ18316@gate.crashing.org> <3CC32047-1B4E-46E5-B3DE-B53B870CD565@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3CC32047-1B4E-46E5-B3DE-B53B870CD565@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > Am 02.07.2019 um 15:19 schrieb Segher Boessenkool : > > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:02:16AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > >>> +#undef TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT > >>> +#define TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT 16 > >> > >> There already is FUNCTION_BOUNDARY for something similar, which fits in > >> well with STACK_BOUNDARY, PARM_BOUNDARY, many more *_BOUNDARY. I realise > >> you may prefer a hook, but as long as we aren't getting rid of all the > >> other macros, what's the point? > > > > And maybe LABEL_BOUNDARY is bettter for this than INSN_BOUNDARY as well? > > Can’t we just use FUNCTION_BOUNDARY then? > I think .LASANPC is always emitted at the beginning of a function. Isn't e.g. the hotpatch sequence emitted before it? Jakub