From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02CB93858C27 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 03:15:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 02CB93858C27 Received: from localhost.localdomain (xry111.site [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB3FC66998; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 23:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55204c3cbb887673e6ec1ece3d19af90d242fd5b.camel@xry111.site> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] LoongArch: add movable attribute From: Xi Ruoyao To: WANG Xuerui , Chenghua Xu , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Lulu Cheng Cc: Jinyang He , Huacai Chen , Youling Tang Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 11:15:24 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <9b6b0e68cfb7e87ae961ef8a7bb7987f534da19c.camel@xry111.site> <6cafbcdf79f77b73b9329f3e3a2f24ec85eda94d.camel@xry111.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD, LIKELY_SPAM_FROM, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD, 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 03:15:32 -0000 On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 10:59 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: > I don't think mindlessly caring for vendor forks is always correct. In > fact I find the name "movable" too generic, and something like=20 > "force_got_access" could be better. The problem is "what will this behave *if* we later add some code model without GOT". If it's named "movable" we generate a full 4-instruction absolute (or PC-relative) address loading sequence if GOT is disabled.=20 If it's named "force_got_access" we report an error and reject the code if GOT is disabled. > I don't currently have time to test this, unfortunately, due to day job.= =20 > Might be able to give it a whirl one or two week later though... Unfortunately, I can't access my dev system via SSH too because while I'm remote, a sudden power surge happened and I forgot to configure an automatically power-on. I'm kind of rushy because I want to make it into 12.2, leaving 12.1 the only exception cannot build Linux >=3D 6.0. But maybe it just can't be backported anyway. --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University