From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-398283-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 83945 invoked by alias); 19 May 2015 16:12:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 83903 invoked by uid 89); 19 May 2015 16:12:08 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-ig0-f180.google.com
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-ig0-f180.google.com) (209.85.213.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 May 2015 16:11:58 +0000
Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so37677246igb.1        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;        bh=SzyMSCN7AA0WlRTT49Ijw8iES5PfS6wp+Cbvjod6NWk=;        b=A8SUp9/FnQE7B2Oh2V4KMqpbkZ0tv2o59iIXcoJbUKopAMSfxuXPJDv9nIiDWcdFjh         ZrNby7VGjrHEjgOYopec/Ddk2V/tKzVkeOCCk5J5AfEpVOG2XVp5yYlA022m32DE7AR0         MQRTEvKXENcsG6Rh6r9p3ryasAkL1IBvJFg2qn6sxcBBEzSnSWrFXnT4w/nMiLouDY7H         vhMxxirtUDI12rloWd2PuH6h+gL3r1Mu1nTGaFb156BSMfrJOik9zPnjsaP5glqgd5VK         uZg4E1Mnf69LA4ySvsWiafxP0G+w3geIH2w6p2zhxgR6zXDm35wpObwexJ9ogCgCQ7FP         Ct9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0jjnIlQQJenWyZuM6fzrieAieCdy89d8BdmAM6Z9mYmJkDeEfyZ95MAd6sZ591xeqcnY/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.131.81 with SMTP id f78mr5612715iod.42.1432051915797; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.52.5 with HTTP; Tue, 19 May 2015 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1b++CR5FJBG4cFTZ2ec+dWgxXgoYWP72GWHtQ8BPruLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAs8HmyB5jZS_zfHKeX9HEK3Eo59nVhuB4yfoGTy5hXV41YZYA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc1b++CR5FJBG4cFTZ2ec+dWgxXgoYWP72GWHtQ8BPruLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:12:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAAkRFZK3kgRbtCVTU7z04ugxSSCqmm_BA+Y=fW=MqnjNcV21Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] COMDAT Safe Module Level Multi versioning
From: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, 	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, 	Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg01721.txt.bz2

>
> Hm.  But which options are unsafe?  Also wouldn't it be better to simply
> _not_ have unsafe options produce comdats but always make local clones
> for them (thus emit the comdat with "unsafe" flags dropped)?

Always localize comdat functions may lead to text size increase. It
does not work if the comdat function is a virtual function for
instance.

David


>
> Richard.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sri