From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19462 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2012 20:40:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 19439 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2012 20:40:02 -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; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:39:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6JKdjDT015440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:39:45 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.11] ([10.3.113.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6JKdhsZ025806; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:39:43 -0400 Message-ID: <5008708E.1030109@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:40:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sriraman Tallam CC: Xinliang David Li , 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> <4FFBF9F5.6020306@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/msg00953.txt.bz2 On 07/10/2012 03:14 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > I am using the questions you asked previously > to explain how I solved each of them. When working on this patch, these > are the exact questions I had and tried to address it. > > * Does this attribute affect a function signature? > > The function signature should be changed when there is more than one > definition/declaration of foo distinguished by unique target attributes. >[...] I agree. I was trying to suggest that these questions are what the front end needs to care about, not about versioning specifically. If these questions are turned into target hooks, all of the logic specific to versioning can be contained in the target. My only question intended to be answered by humans is, do people think moving the versioning logic behind more generic target hooks is worthwhile? Jason