From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB5A3858D1E for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:48:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4BB5A3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 28UHlUnv023327; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 12:47:30 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 28UHlT7c023325; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 12:47:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 12:47:29 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: GCC Patches , "H.J. Lu" , Jakub Jelinek , Richard Biener , AlanM , Peter Bergner , Richard Sandiford , David Edelsohn , jlaw@ventanamicro.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adjust the symbol for SECTION_LINK_ORDER linked_to section [PR99889] Message-ID: <20220930174729.GK25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <0558633c-b553-5ef1-aa6f-c76fcf297454@linux.ibm.com> <20220929203150.GG25951@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 08:47:53PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > on 2022/9/30 04:31, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Please don't define TARGET_ASM_PRINT_PATCHABLE_FUNCTION_ENTRY at all, > > instead, and remove this whole function? > > This hook is still needed for "ELFv2 support rework" which > was just committed in r13-2984. There is also a note > explaining this in the original mail: > > "btw, rs6000_print_patchable_function_entry can be dropped > but there is another rs6000 patch which needs this rs6000 > specific hook rs6000_print_patchable_function_entry, not > sure which one gets landed first, so just leave it here." Ah, so this would be just churn? Okay then :-) Thanks, Segher