From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115103 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2015 11:54:22 -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 115091 invoked by uid 89); 28 Sep 2015 11:54:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:54:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9941F49; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:54:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-4-33.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.33]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8SBsHYk025070; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:54:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add new hooks ASM_OUTPUT_START_FUNCTION_HEADER ... To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Andreas Krebbel , Ulrich Weigand References: <20150921113158.GA30365@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5601B25F.7020501@redhat.com> <20150923144851.GA22727@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5603D354.5030404@redhat.com> <20150924134823.GA5142@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56054D44.9000709@redhat.com> <20150928094447.GC4149@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <56092A69.5090802@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:26:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150928094447.GC4149@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg02101.txt.bz2 On 09/28/2015 11:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:33:56PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 09/24/2015 03:48 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote: >>> Hm, I wonder whether wrapping all these section switches in >>> assemble_start/end_function in ".machine" pseudoops (that's what >>> we need the hooks for; similar to .arch for ix86) has any real >>> effect. >> >> I don't think I follow what you're trying to say here? > > I mean, it's more or less random whether switching to and from the > function's section ends up inside the new .machine and > .machinemode directives (if the section needs to be switched for > this function) or outside (if the assembler code had already > switched to the correct section earlier). I assume that .machine > and .machinemode have no effect on the section switching, but I'm > not completely sure (alignment?). > > (@Andreas + Uli: Do you know of any effect this would have on > s390?) Still not really following since I don't know anything about s390 and its directives. In case you're trying to figure out whether it's possible to use the existing macros, please continue doing so. If you reach the conclusion that you really do need the new hooks, your patch is ok. However, you probably should add a sentence or two to the documentation to specify ordering wrt other parts of the header of a function. Bernd