From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29336 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2012 09:46:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 29320 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2012 09:46:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:46:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6A9kWD9007433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:46:33 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.35] (ovpn-113-35.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.35]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6A9kT7O008993; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:46:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4FFBF9F5.6020306@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:46:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xinliang David Li CC: Sriraman Tallam , mark@codesourcery.com, nathan@codesourcery.com, "H.J. Lu" , Richard Guenther , Jan Hubicka , Uros Bizjak , reply@codereview.appspotmail.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: User directed Function Multiversioning via Function Overloading (issue5752064) References: <20120307004630.A503DB21B6@azwildcat.mtv.corp.google.com> <4FF7D1C6.90407@redhat.com> <4FF96D0C.5060406@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 On 07/09/2012 11:27 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > Ok. Do you have specific comments on the patch? My comment is "Perhaps we want to implement this using a more generic mechanism." I was thinking to defer a detailed code review until that question is settled. Jason